Mr. Lewis proves himself to be the master historian of the Middle East in this sweeping history. What makes him standout is his superb understanding, sensitivity to his subject and objective tone without invective. This is a guide through a civilization for which one from the West is woefully ill-informed.
One understands the success of Islam from its beginning. Unlike the other great religions, Judaism and Christianity, Islam's mission is completed with the death of Muhammad. In other words, Moses is kept from entering the Promised Land, and Jesus is crucified on the cross, however, Muhammad gains a following, grows into a large successful community and state and dies as a successful king. For the believer, this becomes a persuasive argument in Islam's favor.
In discussing the methods of the critical historian, Mr. Lewis cites believing Muslim scholars' difficulties in determining the truth about the founder's life. There is difficulty sifting through embellishments. As a dispassionate critical historian, even more questions rise to the historicity of the events that surround the founder.
Nevertheless, the contours of the this vast civilization come out in the different languages of the region: Arabic, Turkish and Farsi. One can almost trace the history of Islam by the different languages which dominate the civilization. Arabic is the mother tongue of the prophet and remains the intellectual vehicle for all of Islam but the non Arabic peoples, the Persians who speak Farsi rival the tradition with their brand of Islam, the Shi'ah and the Turks originally converts begin to dominate the Islamic community for hundreds of years capping a dynasty with Suleyman the Magnificent. The steppe peoples, Tatars make strong converts too and display the absolute diversity and universality of Islam.
The rivalry, however, with Christendom is ever present. In the Middle ages, the Iberian peninsula is conquered, but entering Central Europe is stopped by the French and the peninsula is taken back by the Catholic monarchs. The modern period is, however, really the only serious time that Western civilization confronts and enters Islamic civilization. The late 17th century marks the stop of the Ottoman empire when they begin their withdraw from Vienna. WWI marks the downfall of the Ottomans [since they chose the wrong side to support] and the West's entry into and domination of the Middle East. Islamic civilization finds itself woefully ill-prepared for the advancements of the West. A proud civilization that precludes being dominated but always dominates has to adjust. The West, the victorious allies, the UK and France carve out new states with monarchies that did not exist during the Ottoman empire. The late nineteenth century nationalism that swept the world after the Napoleonic wars grabs also the Jewish people and Zionism is born finding its home through war in ancient Palestine to the chagrin of the Arabic speaking people of the region.
With fall of the Soviet Union, the Islamic engine of conquest has seemed to turn over and engage. The struggle to regain control of the region and evict the non-Muslim peoples and even enter the West to control and conquer them is ongoing.
Mr. Lewis' contribution is a very worthwhile read.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Friday, November 21, 2014
Islam and the West by Bernard Lewis
This study of the relationship between the Islamic civilization and Western civilization is highlighted by a spirited defense of modern scholarship of Islam against a certain Islamic suspicion that any non Muslim could not possibly study and understand Islam properly. What makes Bernard Lewis a unique scholar is the fact that he has mastered all of the Middle eastern languages.
Islam is unlike Christianity in that there is no separation from the state. Islam has no church. It is an ever growing religious state, originally built on the talents of founder and subsequent conquests. The pinnacle of that state seems to have been the Ottoman empire, a fervently religious regime which unified the people and ruled the longest. The fact that the Ottomans were not Arab, and the Mongols, Tatars were devout converts allows one to see the universal nature of Islam.
As an exclusive faith, however, Islam always rivaled Christian settlement and the Church since Christianity is also an exclusive faith. There never seems to be the possibility of coexistence unless through a truce. This means that a state of war is technically in force with the non Muslim state. The notion of a Muslim living under the rule of a non Muslim is an anathema.
In a confrontation with Columbia professor Edward Said, Lewis dismisses Said's charge that "Orientalism" has an inherent bias and thus one can not rely on any of the past scholarship from non Muslims, citing his sweeping declarations without any proof of support. The term itself implies Western bias because there is an assumption of one factor of geographic direction and no assumption about the cultural civilization! While Lewis might agree that there has been bias, or even the term is outdated, nevertheless, he shows that Said does not seem to understand the scientific methods of research that enable the critical scholar to understand and comment.
The book is a tour d'force as an excellent introduction to a highly cultured profound civilization. Mr. Lewis treats his subject with great sensitivity and respect.
Islam is unlike Christianity in that there is no separation from the state. Islam has no church. It is an ever growing religious state, originally built on the talents of founder and subsequent conquests. The pinnacle of that state seems to have been the Ottoman empire, a fervently religious regime which unified the people and ruled the longest. The fact that the Ottomans were not Arab, and the Mongols, Tatars were devout converts allows one to see the universal nature of Islam.
As an exclusive faith, however, Islam always rivaled Christian settlement and the Church since Christianity is also an exclusive faith. There never seems to be the possibility of coexistence unless through a truce. This means that a state of war is technically in force with the non Muslim state. The notion of a Muslim living under the rule of a non Muslim is an anathema.
In a confrontation with Columbia professor Edward Said, Lewis dismisses Said's charge that "Orientalism" has an inherent bias and thus one can not rely on any of the past scholarship from non Muslims, citing his sweeping declarations without any proof of support. The term itself implies Western bias because there is an assumption of one factor of geographic direction and no assumption about the cultural civilization! While Lewis might agree that there has been bias, or even the term is outdated, nevertheless, he shows that Said does not seem to understand the scientific methods of research that enable the critical scholar to understand and comment.
The book is a tour d'force as an excellent introduction to a highly cultured profound civilization. Mr. Lewis treats his subject with great sensitivity and respect.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Rav Breuer: His life and his legacy by Dr. David Kranzler and Dovid Landesman
Anyone familiar with the Manhattan neighborhood of Washington Heights knows the Germany Jewish synagogue community known by its founding rabbi's name: Breuer's. K'hal Adath Jeshurun (KAJ) on Bennett Ave is a model "Kehillah", a Jewish community in the old corporate style of pre-enlightened Europe that is comprised of a rabbinate with its own court, kosher supervision service, a mikvah society, a full school system and synagogue. David Kranzler and Dovid Landesman have written an excellent history and record of the community's achievement by highlighting the amazing leadership of Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer, a grandson of Rabbi Samson. Refoel Hirsch and a trustworthy tradent of his philosophy, Torah im Derech Eretz.
Rav Breuer was a dynamic personality, a fearless individual who strove for truth and defended his grandfather's outlook of the primacy of Torah that subordinates secular studies without negating or ignoring them. He believed that Torah im Derech Eretz was not just a ad hoc approach to dealing with modernity but rather a long term answer to the challenges of assimilation in the modern world.
One reads about the rav's fearlessness in dealing with the Nazis and his understanding that escape was the only option. He was one of the few who saw that the true nature of Nazism was not a passing fad.
In coming to America, he had clarity of vision to set up a parallel community that was modeled after Frankfurt retaining all of Nusach Ashkenaz. He refused to conform to America, and as a result was a towering role model. With much tact, understanding and sensitivity, he identified with the financial struggles of his congregants, but never wavered in the demand for Torah observance. He also initially did not identify with the Yeshiva world of negating the outside by creating Kollelim because the philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz incorporated secular studies to gain employment and security. Only until it became clear to him that Orthodoxy needed such an approach of the Yeshivos in America did he lend his support.
His integrity and honesty was made famous by his aphorism: Glatt Kosher implies Glatt Yosher! He would deplore the outward looking obvious pious Jew who cheated in business but was scrupulous in finding the proper kosher insignia on what he consumed. He would not associate with any organization that acknowledged anything not Torah observant. He did not identify with the religious Zionists of Mizrachi since they were in partnership with completely secular Zionists. He sided with his grandfather to remain independent and secede from the irreligious community. He believed that the future of the Jewish State could only be long lasting if it were centered around Torah.
When I was a rabbinical student at Yeshiva University, (a community with the philosophy called "Torah U' Mada" Torah and Science and as some allege an offshoot of Torah im Derech Eretz), I lived among the Breuer community in the same building as Chazan Frankel who was a superb refined human being with a very pleasant voice. It became very clear to me that YU was not an offshoot of Torah im Derech Eretz but rather something original and it certainly lacked the consistency and clarity of the Breuer community. Although secular studies were ensconced, YU was too eclectic to assume a Torah im Derech Eretz label.
I must mention that my experience with Rabbi Shimon Schwab Zt"L, Rav Breuer's successor, although brief had a profound effect on me. He was an extraordinary role model. When I frequented the synagogue, he used special crutches and although he seemed in pain as he walked, he demonstrated a lofty spiritual countenance as if accepting his pain out of love for Hashem; there was no grimace, only a faint smile. I would make a Kinyan with him to sell my Chometz and his pleasant smile still reverberates in my mind. Even though he knew that I was not a permanent member of his community and knew I was studying at YU, I always felt a warm welcome from him. I heard him tell of his experience with the Chofetz Chaim in a tone anticipating the coming of Mashiach.
This biography is an excellent introduction to the Hirschian philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz and an inspiring read about one of the architects of Torah survival.
Rav Breuer was a dynamic personality, a fearless individual who strove for truth and defended his grandfather's outlook of the primacy of Torah that subordinates secular studies without negating or ignoring them. He believed that Torah im Derech Eretz was not just a ad hoc approach to dealing with modernity but rather a long term answer to the challenges of assimilation in the modern world.
One reads about the rav's fearlessness in dealing with the Nazis and his understanding that escape was the only option. He was one of the few who saw that the true nature of Nazism was not a passing fad.
In coming to America, he had clarity of vision to set up a parallel community that was modeled after Frankfurt retaining all of Nusach Ashkenaz. He refused to conform to America, and as a result was a towering role model. With much tact, understanding and sensitivity, he identified with the financial struggles of his congregants, but never wavered in the demand for Torah observance. He also initially did not identify with the Yeshiva world of negating the outside by creating Kollelim because the philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz incorporated secular studies to gain employment and security. Only until it became clear to him that Orthodoxy needed such an approach of the Yeshivos in America did he lend his support.
His integrity and honesty was made famous by his aphorism: Glatt Kosher implies Glatt Yosher! He would deplore the outward looking obvious pious Jew who cheated in business but was scrupulous in finding the proper kosher insignia on what he consumed. He would not associate with any organization that acknowledged anything not Torah observant. He did not identify with the religious Zionists of Mizrachi since they were in partnership with completely secular Zionists. He sided with his grandfather to remain independent and secede from the irreligious community. He believed that the future of the Jewish State could only be long lasting if it were centered around Torah.
When I was a rabbinical student at Yeshiva University, (a community with the philosophy called "Torah U' Mada" Torah and Science and as some allege an offshoot of Torah im Derech Eretz), I lived among the Breuer community in the same building as Chazan Frankel who was a superb refined human being with a very pleasant voice. It became very clear to me that YU was not an offshoot of Torah im Derech Eretz but rather something original and it certainly lacked the consistency and clarity of the Breuer community. Although secular studies were ensconced, YU was too eclectic to assume a Torah im Derech Eretz label.
I must mention that my experience with Rabbi Shimon Schwab Zt"L, Rav Breuer's successor, although brief had a profound effect on me. He was an extraordinary role model. When I frequented the synagogue, he used special crutches and although he seemed in pain as he walked, he demonstrated a lofty spiritual countenance as if accepting his pain out of love for Hashem; there was no grimace, only a faint smile. I would make a Kinyan with him to sell my Chometz and his pleasant smile still reverberates in my mind. Even though he knew that I was not a permanent member of his community and knew I was studying at YU, I always felt a warm welcome from him. I heard him tell of his experience with the Chofetz Chaim in a tone anticipating the coming of Mashiach.
This biography is an excellent introduction to the Hirschian philosophy of Torah im Derech Eretz and an inspiring read about one of the architects of Torah survival.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory by Deborah Lipstadt
Ms. Lipstadt has written a history of Holocaust denial, the troubling trend to sow the seeds of doubt about the most horrific event of the twentieth century. Denying the Holocaust is a subtle way of hiding one's antisemitism under the cover of 'scholarship' by questioning the number of victims and methods of the Nazi annihilation of European Jewry.
The numbers defy the imagination. The method of gassing seems too brutal to be true. Coupled with the responsibility attached to the national identity of Germany one can understand a desire to forget about the greatest blight on humanity. Without the overwhelming evidence of the slaughter, one could easily question how one could one be so cruel.
The evidence, however, has not stopped many from attempting to rehabilitate Germany from its Nazi past. Most deniers, antisemites in disguise tend to create doubt by actually ignoring the overwhelming evidence by espousing arguments of 'reason', speculations and assumptions that reasonable people would never conjure up such brutality! Or peg the evidence on Jewish historians who they claim have an obvious bias against Germany! Never is their argument ever fully explained because internally it can't stand up to internal logic. If Hitler never wanted to destroy the Jews why would the Jews be against him? Their arguments only make sense to one who hates Jews, who believe there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy against them.
I remember a Television program that aired a visit to Auschwitz in which a so called "expert engineer" collected samples of Zyklon B from gas chambers and concluded that there was not enough residue to effect lethal levels. I don't remember a rebuttal of the charges that he made on the program. Prof. Lipstadt, however, gives the background and discussion of this fellow and exposes him as a absolute fraud who lacked any professional training. And in-spite of debriefing the TV producers before the airing of the show about the fraud, the program nevertheless aired! It is a sad commentary about the nature of TV and ratings vs. the need to tell the truth.
It is clear to me, with the aging of and passing of Holocaust survivors, there will be more denial of the past crimes because most can't or won't fathom such abuse, sadism and murder even with the overwhelming evidence of the program for the 'final solution of the Jewish problem' by Hitler and his Nazi regime.
The numbers defy the imagination. The method of gassing seems too brutal to be true. Coupled with the responsibility attached to the national identity of Germany one can understand a desire to forget about the greatest blight on humanity. Without the overwhelming evidence of the slaughter, one could easily question how one could one be so cruel.
The evidence, however, has not stopped many from attempting to rehabilitate Germany from its Nazi past. Most deniers, antisemites in disguise tend to create doubt by actually ignoring the overwhelming evidence by espousing arguments of 'reason', speculations and assumptions that reasonable people would never conjure up such brutality! Or peg the evidence on Jewish historians who they claim have an obvious bias against Germany! Never is their argument ever fully explained because internally it can't stand up to internal logic. If Hitler never wanted to destroy the Jews why would the Jews be against him? Their arguments only make sense to one who hates Jews, who believe there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy against them.
I remember a Television program that aired a visit to Auschwitz in which a so called "expert engineer" collected samples of Zyklon B from gas chambers and concluded that there was not enough residue to effect lethal levels. I don't remember a rebuttal of the charges that he made on the program. Prof. Lipstadt, however, gives the background and discussion of this fellow and exposes him as a absolute fraud who lacked any professional training. And in-spite of debriefing the TV producers before the airing of the show about the fraud, the program nevertheless aired! It is a sad commentary about the nature of TV and ratings vs. the need to tell the truth.
It is clear to me, with the aging of and passing of Holocaust survivors, there will be more denial of the past crimes because most can't or won't fathom such abuse, sadism and murder even with the overwhelming evidence of the program for the 'final solution of the Jewish problem' by Hitler and his Nazi regime.
Titan: the life of John D. Rockefeller Sr. by Ron Chernow
This great biography is really a monumental contribution toward the history of US business of the late 19th and early 20th centuries putting into perspective the values and politics of a free capitalistic society and how government becomes involved. The American Oil companies of Mobil, Exxon, Chevron, Soho, Amoco have there origins in the Standard oil monopoly that was ultimately broken up by the government. This is a story of the investment houses of JP Morgan and Kuhn Loeb (Jacob Schiff) as they pertain to the 'discounts' allotted to Standard oil by the different train companies to transport the oil for kerosene lighting.
Mr. Rockefeller Sr. was described sensitively and realistically showing what one person can achieve through thought, planning and great effort. He exhibited some formidable qualities worth studying. Highly sensitive and very intelligent, Mr. Rockefeller showed great restraint and control over his emotions. Never one to allow a slight to go unanswered, Mr. Rockefeller never was impulsive. He was a determined person with cunning and sharp insight always seeking an opponent's weak spot.
His way was legendary: be scrupulously honest in accounting and always give an account. (He required his adult son to always account for his expenditures even when their fantastic wealth could not have been affected by any miscalculation.) He prided himself on honesty since his religious Baptist upbringing, well integrated into his being demanded it. Similarly, however, he was known to be vindictive in a subtle way. Only upon reflection does one see that personality flaw because he was so cunning in his retaliation, a way that always could be interpreted without vengeance. He could always explain away his behavior in a positive manner. His rapaciousness was constantly justified and explained as "cooperation" is always preferred over "competition". Many testified that he was probably the most intelligent person of his day.
His antisemitism came out as he prided himself for besting a Jew in business. Interestingly enough, he could not swallow up Shell Oil (founded by Jewish Marcus Samuel) and the Royal Dutch Oil companies but rather had to compete with them since they were supported by the financially muscular French Rothschild family. Ironically, his son seemed to claim that his company received better treatment from the Jewish Jacob Schiff of the investment house of Kuhn Loeb then the house of JP Morgan. There seemed to be a lingering feeling that Rockefeller could not trust Morgan.
Rockefeller showed tremendous restraint. When he was completely vilified in a series of magazine articles and press coverage, he felt no impulse to respond and defend himself. He always felt confident that he was guiltless. As a matter of fact, during his tenure at Standard Oil he prided himself at keeping prices of kerosene low for the consumer. With the rise of the automobile, Standard Oil supremacy remained through his successors who were responsible for the changes in price. He shied away from any publicity until his retirement at which point he had already given away millions to a number of philanthropies (including the founding of the University of Chicago).
Rockefeller never understood or appreciated the charges against him. He condemned the vilification of his person to the evils of 'Unionization' and 'Socialism'. Teddy Roosevelt capitalized on Rockefeller's lack of appreciation of the charges against him. He saw a great opportunity to grow the government and curtail free enterprise when the public cry against the rapacity of Rockefeller and Standard Oil rose to a deafening shout.
Ironically, the breakup of Standard oil did not punish John D. Rockefeller Sr. Since he owned a majority share of the company he benefited by owning majority shares in each separate company which exponentially augmented his wealth to billionaire status. Before the actual breakup, Mr. Rockefeller recommended buying Standard Oil stock because he understood the benefits of what was essentially a huge stock split! And although he became somewhat bawdy in his old age, by the time he died (well into his 90's) he was known for his philanthropy and not for his avarice.
Mr. Rockefeller Sr. was described sensitively and realistically showing what one person can achieve through thought, planning and great effort. He exhibited some formidable qualities worth studying. Highly sensitive and very intelligent, Mr. Rockefeller showed great restraint and control over his emotions. Never one to allow a slight to go unanswered, Mr. Rockefeller never was impulsive. He was a determined person with cunning and sharp insight always seeking an opponent's weak spot.
His way was legendary: be scrupulously honest in accounting and always give an account. (He required his adult son to always account for his expenditures even when their fantastic wealth could not have been affected by any miscalculation.) He prided himself on honesty since his religious Baptist upbringing, well integrated into his being demanded it. Similarly, however, he was known to be vindictive in a subtle way. Only upon reflection does one see that personality flaw because he was so cunning in his retaliation, a way that always could be interpreted without vengeance. He could always explain away his behavior in a positive manner. His rapaciousness was constantly justified and explained as "cooperation" is always preferred over "competition". Many testified that he was probably the most intelligent person of his day.
His antisemitism came out as he prided himself for besting a Jew in business. Interestingly enough, he could not swallow up Shell Oil (founded by Jewish Marcus Samuel) and the Royal Dutch Oil companies but rather had to compete with them since they were supported by the financially muscular French Rothschild family. Ironically, his son seemed to claim that his company received better treatment from the Jewish Jacob Schiff of the investment house of Kuhn Loeb then the house of JP Morgan. There seemed to be a lingering feeling that Rockefeller could not trust Morgan.
Rockefeller showed tremendous restraint. When he was completely vilified in a series of magazine articles and press coverage, he felt no impulse to respond and defend himself. He always felt confident that he was guiltless. As a matter of fact, during his tenure at Standard Oil he prided himself at keeping prices of kerosene low for the consumer. With the rise of the automobile, Standard Oil supremacy remained through his successors who were responsible for the changes in price. He shied away from any publicity until his retirement at which point he had already given away millions to a number of philanthropies (including the founding of the University of Chicago).
Rockefeller never understood or appreciated the charges against him. He condemned the vilification of his person to the evils of 'Unionization' and 'Socialism'. Teddy Roosevelt capitalized on Rockefeller's lack of appreciation of the charges against him. He saw a great opportunity to grow the government and curtail free enterprise when the public cry against the rapacity of Rockefeller and Standard Oil rose to a deafening shout.
Ironically, the breakup of Standard oil did not punish John D. Rockefeller Sr. Since he owned a majority share of the company he benefited by owning majority shares in each separate company which exponentially augmented his wealth to billionaire status. Before the actual breakup, Mr. Rockefeller recommended buying Standard Oil stock because he understood the benefits of what was essentially a huge stock split! And although he became somewhat bawdy in his old age, by the time he died (well into his 90's) he was known for his philanthropy and not for his avarice.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
The Appeasers by Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott
This contribution puts to rest the notion that Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax deliberately coaxed and indulged the Germans with appeasement in order to give England a chance to rearm and prepare for the war against Germany. The authors forcefully show how from the time of the Treaty of Versailles that the English were in no mood to commit to a war and were committed to peace at a very heavy price even at the expense of Poland's sacrifice until the moral outrage and public opinion demanded that England keep their committed alliance and guarantee.
The outrageous treaty that stripped Germany of its assets and pride is seen by the British as an embarrassment. The British seem eager to re-establish the 'Anglo/Saxon' bound and out of guilt offer appeasing policies, allocating colonies and allowing the break up Czechoslovakia and ultimate annexation of Austria to placate the Germans and blunt to impact of Versailles.
There is ample evidence that the diplomatic corp throughout the 1930's offered intelligence that suggested that Hitler's appetite was far greater that anything Chamberlain envisioned would satiate. The diplomats were concerned with the emerging brutality of the Nazi regime, its Anti-Semitism and quashing of any dissent; that it signaled the impossibility of reason.
The element of secrecy became necessary because the British public opinion would not tolerate the betrayal of its ally France. If in secret, an agreement of peace could be reached it could be announced dramatically and heroically. Chamberlain really thought that the public waiving of the Munich agreement would stave off war. In retrospect, Hitler exploited Chamberlain's guilt all along with continued demands. Hitler was never interested in peace, he was interested in conquest and hegemony over the world.
All countries are committed to peace. Appeasement, however, seems likely when a country lacks the will power to fulfill obligations. Even when England had a guarantee for Poland's sovereignty, it still secretly pressed Poland to deal with Germany's demands! The demand for peace not only can obstruct the enemy's true intentions but it also can demoralize morale. The public moral outrage brought down the Chamberlain government and brought on Churchill as PM. It is interesting to note that as a member of the cabinet, and even one who staunchly and consistently criticized Appeasement, Churchill did not publicly demand the fall of the government, nor was responsible for it.
The outrageous treaty that stripped Germany of its assets and pride is seen by the British as an embarrassment. The British seem eager to re-establish the 'Anglo/Saxon' bound and out of guilt offer appeasing policies, allocating colonies and allowing the break up Czechoslovakia and ultimate annexation of Austria to placate the Germans and blunt to impact of Versailles.
There is ample evidence that the diplomatic corp throughout the 1930's offered intelligence that suggested that Hitler's appetite was far greater that anything Chamberlain envisioned would satiate. The diplomats were concerned with the emerging brutality of the Nazi regime, its Anti-Semitism and quashing of any dissent; that it signaled the impossibility of reason.
The element of secrecy became necessary because the British public opinion would not tolerate the betrayal of its ally France. If in secret, an agreement of peace could be reached it could be announced dramatically and heroically. Chamberlain really thought that the public waiving of the Munich agreement would stave off war. In retrospect, Hitler exploited Chamberlain's guilt all along with continued demands. Hitler was never interested in peace, he was interested in conquest and hegemony over the world.
All countries are committed to peace. Appeasement, however, seems likely when a country lacks the will power to fulfill obligations. Even when England had a guarantee for Poland's sovereignty, it still secretly pressed Poland to deal with Germany's demands! The demand for peace not only can obstruct the enemy's true intentions but it also can demoralize morale. The public moral outrage brought down the Chamberlain government and brought on Churchill as PM. It is interesting to note that as a member of the cabinet, and even one who staunchly and consistently criticized Appeasement, Churchill did not publicly demand the fall of the government, nor was responsible for it.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Who Crucified Jesus by Solomon Zeitlin
Who Crucified Jesus is an excellent work of historical research into the Christian scriptures showing that the Jewish people are not responsible for Jesus' crucifixion. There are some important features about the first century CE that come out in this contribution. Sectarianism is explained clearly to show context of the emerging new religion. The role of the Sanhedrin is discussed in detail. Philo and Josephus are heavily relied upon to give an accurate picture of the Roman procurators. Professor Zeitlin explains the differences between political and religious offenses and concludes that Jesus was accused of a political offense and put to death under the Roman authorities. The book originally written during WWII enables the author to analogize the Roman brutality to the Nazi onslaught making an evocative read.
After discussing the Hasmonean revolt and the emergence of the sectarians Pharisees and Sadducees, Professor Zeitlin explain the basic differences in belief. The Pharisees believe in an afterlife and the resurrection of the dead and the Sadduccees do not. This difference ends up being crucial in understanding the Jewish followers of Jesus commit no crimes in believing in a resurrection. The prof. goes through the Tannaitic literature and shows that Jesus commits no religious crime that deserves capital punishment through the religious court, the Sanhedrin and concludes that there must have been a separate second Sanhedrin for political crimes against the Roman State to which which Jesus is ultimately submitted and then sent to the Roman procurator, Pilate. The political offense of being accused of being the "King of the Jews" would imply sedition to which the Romans would sentence one to death by crucifixion.
Dr. Zeitlin shows his power of exegesis when he deconstructs the Christian Scriptures. He shows the absolute contradictions among them. By explaining, however, that each book addresses a specific audience, the prof. proves that there are not serious contradictions but understandable prejudices. He claims that the so-called 'Synoptic Gospels' are really addressing a Jewish audience and thus one does not find a negative inference about the Pharisees being hypocrites; whereas the non 'Synoptic Gospel' is addressing a non-Jewish audience which understandably depicts much prejudice against the Jewish people for rejecting their messiah and introduce the Pharisees as being hypocrites.
According to Christian Scripture, Pilot the procurator that put Jesus to death is depicted as sympathetic, however, Professor Zeitlin cites the testimony of Philo and Josephus to show that Pilate was not a sympathetic character but rather a vicious personality. There is built in animosity against the Jewish people for rejecting Jesus, so the Romans are depicted as not being responsible for his death.
Professor Zeitlin shows definitively that the Jewish people are not and should not be accused of crucifying Jesus. He admits that Jewish people rejected him as the Messiah but never did they try Jesus for any religious offense that the religious Sanhedrin (which was dominated by the Pharisees) could have been responsible for punishing him. As a matter of fact, the corrupt High priest as the vassal authority who had everything to lose by not cooperating with the Romans delivered Jesus over to the authorities for the capital crime of sedition against the Roman state. The book is an excellent read, showing the consummate skills of the critical historian.
After discussing the Hasmonean revolt and the emergence of the sectarians Pharisees and Sadducees, Professor Zeitlin explain the basic differences in belief. The Pharisees believe in an afterlife and the resurrection of the dead and the Sadduccees do not. This difference ends up being crucial in understanding the Jewish followers of Jesus commit no crimes in believing in a resurrection. The prof. goes through the Tannaitic literature and shows that Jesus commits no religious crime that deserves capital punishment through the religious court, the Sanhedrin and concludes that there must have been a separate second Sanhedrin for political crimes against the Roman State to which which Jesus is ultimately submitted and then sent to the Roman procurator, Pilate. The political offense of being accused of being the "King of the Jews" would imply sedition to which the Romans would sentence one to death by crucifixion.
Dr. Zeitlin shows his power of exegesis when he deconstructs the Christian Scriptures. He shows the absolute contradictions among them. By explaining, however, that each book addresses a specific audience, the prof. proves that there are not serious contradictions but understandable prejudices. He claims that the so-called 'Synoptic Gospels' are really addressing a Jewish audience and thus one does not find a negative inference about the Pharisees being hypocrites; whereas the non 'Synoptic Gospel' is addressing a non-Jewish audience which understandably depicts much prejudice against the Jewish people for rejecting their messiah and introduce the Pharisees as being hypocrites.
According to Christian Scripture, Pilot the procurator that put Jesus to death is depicted as sympathetic, however, Professor Zeitlin cites the testimony of Philo and Josephus to show that Pilate was not a sympathetic character but rather a vicious personality. There is built in animosity against the Jewish people for rejecting Jesus, so the Romans are depicted as not being responsible for his death.
Professor Zeitlin shows definitively that the Jewish people are not and should not be accused of crucifying Jesus. He admits that Jewish people rejected him as the Messiah but never did they try Jesus for any religious offense that the religious Sanhedrin (which was dominated by the Pharisees) could have been responsible for punishing him. As a matter of fact, the corrupt High priest as the vassal authority who had everything to lose by not cooperating with the Romans delivered Jesus over to the authorities for the capital crime of sedition against the Roman state. The book is an excellent read, showing the consummate skills of the critical historian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)