I am reading a book called "The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man". Even though it is boring and is taking me a long time to finish, I finally made it through Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, and have gotten to the Hebrew conception of God. The author's contention is that even though there were attempts at monotheism prior to Moses, (Akhenaten, for example), and the Hebrews borrowed these concepts, it was what the Hebrews did with monotheism that made them unique. It was tying the idea of one God to ethics and morals (ethical monotheism).
This led me to think about Rashi's statement to the opening of Genesis, that the Bible could have started with Exodus 13, making Nisan the first month of the year, since the Bible is a book of law, and that was the first law given to Israel. He questions, why does it begin with creation? His answer is to show that since God created the earth, God could give any portion of the earth to whomever God chooses; therefore the Hebrews were not thieves when they took the land of Canaan (Rashi reinforces this idea later in Genesis 12 with his comment to "the Canaanites were then in the land", by claiming that the Canaanites, a Hamitic people, conquered Semitic land, and their expulsion was justifiable--funny how some things never change).
I think there might be another reason. In other creation stories, the gods create people (usually to be servants to the gods). God created a man. As a result, all people are descended from one ancestor (it is brilliant that it is only one man and the woman comes from him). Since all people are related, God can demand that all people must be treated justly and fairly--especially the slave, the widow, and the orphan, since they are the most defenseless.
According to some interpretations of the Suffering Servant (mostly Isaiah 52-53), Israel is the barometer of the world. The way Israel is treated determines the fate of nations. Every nation that has oppressed Israel is gone--ancient Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. Nations that allowed the Jews to prosper benefited as well. (Jeremiah--pray for the welfare of Babylon, for in its well-being is your well-being). As a result, Jews have been loyal citizens when permitted.
Why, then, if this is so easy to see (if I could figure it out, it must be), is there Antisemitism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Scattered thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. Did any polytheists every try to link gods and ethics?
2. I think Rashi's justification points to the danger in ethical monotheism. *Perhaps* G-d is ethical, but even if that were the case, that doesn't mean ethics come from G-d. Ethics are by definition an expression of human reasonableness, because they a. allow us to keep society together and b. rationally arbitrate conflicting rights claims whenever one or all parties is unable/unwilling to exercise force no matter what. G-d has nothing to do with that; even if G-d told us we could oppress some poor people the oppression of the weak would still be un-universalizable, to put it in Kantian terms.
2b. The idea that things (land, but especially humans) are G-d's property is downright horrible. Besides the obvious fact that there's no objective way to prove G-d willed or didn't will something, or at least not with another faith, this basically asks us not to examine our own actions from any other lense.
3. To be fair, how many civilizations from that long ago didn't try to kill us and are still around? Not any that I can think of. So we can argue that there are unique factors that kept the Jews around (or, alternativly, probability said there would be about one ancient civilization still around and we just got lucky) but it's a huge stretch to say that attitudes towards the Jews makes a difference.
4. To answer your question, a. see above and b. there's no such thing as rational racism. People become ideological because they want to act passionately without the burden of thought. At least, I can't figure another explanation.