Scripture in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

The Sermons

2008-05-08T01:16:00.004-04:00

I enjoyed the sermon portion of the semester very much. It was interesting for me to see how writing with a "religious" mindset could change what I had to say or, at least, how I ended up saying it. In general, my paper/sermon was politically driven with various inserts relating to the Bible woven into the piece to give it a more Christian vibe. Finding out that even with a religious mindset I still was able to be truthful really made me rethink the role that religion could have in politics - that it could be positive too.

Fortunately for everyone who is not a morning person, the sermons were fun to listen to and a couple of them were able to persuade me into agreeing with their statements. Learning about which elements need to be included into a (protestant) sermon and how to reach specific goals in the piece was a worth-while experience.

The purpose of a sermon

2008-05-01T15:46:00.005-04:00

Our most recent assignment and also the past few readings have made me wonder what exactly the purpose of a sermon is. What do people look a for once a week on Sunday? I used to always think that a sermon was a sort of weekly "spiritual renewal" - a chance to reflect on God in this time taken out of the busy week. But I don't think this was always the case - church on Sunday wasn't always the exception - I think religion used to be a much larger part of Christians' day to day lives. Has the purpose of the sermon shifted since people's relationship to religion has shifted? I think that at one time, the sermon may have been more about teaching than about consolation or renewal.

In any case, how does scripture relate to the purpose of a sermon? What's interesting is that I think scripture can function in a sermon in these different ways and others. Scripture, in this case the Old and New Testaments, encompass so many ideas that it can be used from purposes of teaching to purposes of consolation.

Politics and Religion

2008-04-30T18:28:00.008-04:00

I would like to clear up my position from class:

I agree, to an extent, and find it reasonable that a person of faith, or a person of no faith, would have their political opinions influenced by whatever their level of spirituality is. However, people need to realize that their faith and beliefs are not grounds for law, their customs and religious rules are not grounds for law, and any aspects or beliefs of their faith are not evidence for law. It's understandable that a Christian would be pro-life, but for that person to claim that abortion is wrong because it "sends a soul to hell," is a statement that will not be taken seriously and would only fall on deaf ears for any non-Christian (and many practicing Christians as well).

I also find it rather arrogant that some politicians would claim God or Jesus told them to do something. When there is no evidence to verify any authenticity in religiously motivated decisions then it is as if we are shaping the lives of others blindly instead of looking to facts, science and universal rights. I have no problem with mixing faith and politics as long as people are respectful and not assume that their faith is logical reasoning for policy, they need to find real logical reasons that can be proven and justified. Unfortunately, we are unable to justify biblical events from thousands of years ago, so religious convictions rightfully should not be used to resolve the current issues of today. In an ideal society, sure, religion and politics could be fine together, but in our world religion is, more often than not, used as an exploitative and manipulative tool in the political sphere.

What kind of book is the Bible?

2008-04-29T23:24:00.005-04:00

Richard Mouw’s The Bible in Twentieth-Century Protestantism was very interesting. However, what struck me the most was not the fact that certain groups within Christianity have different opinions on the bible; it was the fact that ONLY 48 percent of Protestants and 41 percent of Catholic believed that “the Bible is the word of God and is not mistaken in its statements and teachings”
I understand that every Christian has his or her opinion about “what kind of book the Bible is”; whether they are doctrinalists, pietists, moralists/legalists, or culturalists, every Christian has distinctive opinion on the Bible.
Some might say it is a source that talks everything about God, some might say it is a bridge that connects to God, some might say it is a guideline which tells us how to live the moral life, and some might say it is a handbook which tells us how to survive in this world.

Yet, I just don’t understand that 52 percent of Protestants and 59 percent of Catholic do not believe that “the Bible is the word of God, thus it is absolute”.
Christianity I know is not only accepting Jesus Christ as the only Son of God (who had come to die and suffer for salvation of humanity), but also accepting the Bible as the word of God, the absolute TRUTH.
It is wrong to “WORSHIP” the bible, but I do not believe that it is right to accept the Bible merely as a source, bridge, guideline, or handbook.

How could Christians say that the Bible contains mistakes while believing that the Bible tells about everything about God? How could Christians say that the Bible is not the word of God while reading them in order to connect to God, and find the moral guidelines and tips to survive in this world? If they do not believe that the Bible is not the word of God thus absolute, why do they even bring the Bible to the church?

I mean, if the Bible is not the word of God, why do we even care what kind of book the Bible is?

God’s will and Free will

2008-04-29T22:14:00.003-04:00

I believe that God has a plan for me, and I also believe that everything happens according to His plan. I know what God wants me to do, and I am going to follow His will whether I like it or not, because I do trust that ONLY GOD knows what is best for me.
God had created me not because He was bored, but because He had a plan for me. He had to personalize me specifically not because he was creative, but because He had a specific plan for me.
I do know that I do not necessarily need to follow His will. God has given me free will that I can always do whatever I want to do.
However, I cannot disobey His will, because God has given me free will only to love and respect him “willingly”.
God did not have to give me free will; He could have simply created me to do whatever He wants me to do. Yet, He did not create me as a robot, because He wanted to “see” if I could respect and love Him back “willingly.”
I can prove to Him that I do love and respect him only by following His will or living my life according to His plan. I know that God will love and wait for me no matter how far I run away from Him through disobeying His will. Yet, why would I do that knowing that disobeying God will only break His heart as well as mine?

We know what our parents want us to do (or what they want us NOT to do). Yet, it is OUR CHOICE whether we follow their wills or not. Parents will love us no matter what we do, but can we be truly happy knowing that what we are doing is making them sad?

Class in the Chapel

2008-04-29T17:07:00.002-04:00

When we were talking about the ideas of free will and if god really does have a set plan for all of us i realized that that is one of my fundamental issues with christianity. I have found myself slowly becoming more and more interested in christianity but i keep wondering about the whole role of god. I mean so many people believe that either god has plans for everyone or than he doesnt and that we have free will but god watches over us. I sorta like both those ideas but i want something more concrete almost. I just want to know what really is the deal with god? Does he have a plan for us all or is it more a rough draft and we are the ones the edit it to make the final version and when we die and supposedly go to heaven is it then that god gives us a grade on our final life draft? Just some things i have been pondering.

Fasting

2008-04-19T17:29:00.003-04:00

I also thought the reading in JCM was interesting, particularly the section on fasting. I'm surprised that the ritual still continues to this day and is "inseperable" for most Christians with prayer. I personally don't believe that through fasting demons will be expelled or our sins will be forgiven. If a murderer fasts, is he/she forgiven for his/her sins then? Another idea that struck me was the statement, "fasting was believed to heighten the soul's power to concentrate on prayer, since it helped to distance it from the demands of the body." When I read this, the first religion that came to mind was Buddhism. In Professor Timm's "Engaged Buddhism" class we learned that Theravadin Buddhists, in partucular fast as a method of purification and as a means of freeing the mind.

Worship and Ritual in Christianity

2008-04-18T00:22:00.001-04:00

The JCM reading on worship and ritual in Christianity was interesting. I liked the way it discussed different Christian perspectives, rituals and ideologies based on the history of the New Testament. I also thought the reading did a good job summarizing and examining Christian perspectives and relationships to Judaism and Islam. It seemed to me that most Christian rituals are the ones Jesus and the New Testament scholars considered.

The part I enjoyed most was the part about European missionaries and indigenous Africans. I was born in a region where European missionaries (Catholics and Protestants) competed over indigenous people for conversion. As the reading put it, there were some misunderstandings and differences between the missionaries and indigenous people. The persons the missionaries wanted to convert did like some Christian rituals because they were against their cultures. For example, pouring water over heads for baptism seemed strange to Africans because it was a symbol of action, not a sign of religious identity. “In Christianity, Ritual and prayer is ritual, and ritual is prayer. Ritual and prayer are most often called ‘worship’ by Christians” (JCM 236). I am not sure about the first religions and traditions we studied early, but is Christianity the only religion, which considers prayer and ritual to be the same? I do not see ritual and prayer as different words because they have distinctive meanings.

This Week's Sub Class

2008-04-17T18:31:00.002-04:00

I thought that the substitute professor did a great job this week. It was interesting seeing the first pieces of scripture that has been preserved over the years. I know that there have been significant discoveries of scripture as well as other religious artifacts found in Israel, but I did not realize how much more was found in Egypt because of the better preserving conditions - I think he said about 90% of scripture was found in Egypt alone. It was also interesting seeing where Jesus, John, Luke, Paul...etc. lie on a timeline and seeing how they influenced each other-that was pretty neat. I have more knowledge of my Jewish roots than my Christian (Protestant) roots and it is always nice to learn new things from either.

Monday's Class

2008-04-15T21:09:00.004-04:00

I really enjoyed the visiting professor that came on monday. I thought that he gave a lot of new information about that bible that I wasnt really informed about. I thought it was especially cool when he showed us the images of the remains of different manuscripts. It made me a lot more interested in the restoration of these different texts. When he mentioned that some of the texts were omitted from the bible during the time of constantine was also very interesting, I had no idea that the texts that were included were decided by a small group of men that constantine had chosen. I now wonder if christianity would be very different if the texts that were omitted has been included in the text.

How Shall They Hear?

2008-04-15T16:41:00.004-04:00

It seems to me that Proctor not only describes how one should present a sermon, but writes his book as if it were a sermon, to serve as an example. Though different from an actual sermon that he would present to a congregation, his book embodies a style that shares many traits with a sermon:

-He uses personal anecdotes, such as his surgery
-He uses repetition, such as repeating the phrase "How Shall They Hear" to form a theme
-He quotes scripture, not only in the title but in other places, such as Psalm 121
-He uses other rhetorical techniques such as rhetorical questions

Perhaps Proctor uses this language because he is used to giving sermons, or perhaps he hopes to show on a second level how one should write a sermon.

Does God Speak to us?

2008-04-11T15:06:00.005-04:00

Do you believe that God speaks to us? Or do you believe that God is too almighty or… busy to communicate with human beings? If you believe that God speaks to you from time to time, how does he do that?

As a Christian, I do believe that God speaks to us, and I also believe that He sends His messages in various ways.
He may talk to us through the bible… He may use other people/messengers to deliver His messages to us… He may allow certain circumstances in our life to lead us to discover His message… or He may simply talk to us directly just like the way He did to Moses and other prophets/kings from the Old Testament.

When Professor Kraus first asked Jackie to read Matthew Chapter 4 verse 2 through 11, I felt completely nothing as I knew what the passage was about. I read and heard the passage many times before, and I had never ever felt that God was trying to tell me something through the passage from Matthew 4:2-11.
Yet, today was different. I could feel myself becoming extremely emotional as Professor encouraged us to find “what God is trying to tell each one of us through this passage”; the more the passage was read by different people, the more I felt that God was sending me the same message over and over again. Overall, I felt that… I mean, I understand that it might sound very funny, but I believe that God spoke to me today through inspiring professor Kraus to make his students read Matthew 4:2-11 over and over again on 04/11/2008 for his REL 204 class.

I understand that lots of people, even many Christian friends of mine, might say “no, that is ridiculous” or “well, you are taking it too seriously.” However, I really did receive an answer to the problem that I had been dealing with for the past two weeks, and this is more amazing, because I prayed God to send me the message last night… (I don't know I might be just too religious)

Christianity and Buddhism

2008-04-10T15:35:00.003-04:00

I do not believe that Jesus was a Buddhist. Although there are many spiritual similarities between the two religions, there is a lack of historical evidence to prove that this is true. First of all, the central teachings of the Buddha and Jesus are not in agreement. Buddhism teaches that nothing exists in and of itself, every being is dependent on something or someone else. There is also the belief that nirvana can only be achieved by the truly enlightened. Tied to this is the concept of “anatman” or no-self. Jesus on the other hand saw himself as an agent of the coming of the Kingdom of God. As Alice said, “I think Jesus came here only to die and suffer for our sins (Matthew 1:21) as the only son of God.” You can not compare the “Kingdom of Heaven” to nirvana. In order to enter heaven, one has to have a good relationship with God, yet to enter nirvana you have to be detached and impersonal. I do not think this is what Jesus would have wanted his followers to do. Although the two religions differ in many ways, they do agree on the concept of compassion. For Buddhists, compassion for all beings is an important concept. Jesus displays this compassion by doing what he came here to do, during his life and death. In regards to the “miracles” Jesus performed, these are only mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels. In John for example, he never uses the term “miracle.” He refers to Jesus’ work as “signs.” By using the word sign the author of John is stressing the way Jesus’ deeds show who he is, not just what he can do. Compared to the Synoptics, where Jesus refuses to do miracles in order to prove his identity, in John Jesus says “Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe (4.48). Therefore, I think Jesus’ “miracles” have to be taken into perspective depending on which gospel you are referring to.

The Song of Songs

2008-04-08T20:56:00.005-04:00

I still remember the day when I first read the Song of Songs.
I was shocked...confused... embarrassed...

I simply did not understand why the Bible, the Holy Scripture, was containing the story of two lovers.

Even though I later learned that the Song of Songs was an allegorical representation of the relationship of God and Israel as husband and wife, I still did not understand why the book(the Song of Songs) had to be so 'erotic.'

However, while struggling to find the inner meaning of the Song of Songs (after Monday's class), I realized that there was no reason for the Song of Songs to be ashamed of.

Yes, the Song of Songs contains detailed, vivid descriptions of the desire of two lovers for each other. Yet, the desire, which is described in the Song of Songs, is/should be considered honorable, because those two lovers have been permitted by God to have the pure desire of wanting each other (both physically and psychologically) as husband and wife (or bridegroom and bride).

I might be wrong, but personally I think that the Song of Songs is meant to justify and emphasize God's design for sex (or sexual activies) within marriage.

INTERESTING ARTICLE I FOUND

Song of Solomon: God's Sex Education For Ages 11 to 99

Song of Songs

2008-04-07T18:30:00.003-04:00

When I think of religion, I think of scripture, a place of worship, values and rituals and certainly recitation. I did not know that there were certain parts of the Bible that were not "suppose" to be read aloud. The section we analyzed in class today, The Song of Songs, is not simply an allegory for God's love, but also an erotic story between a male love and a female lover. This love poetry exhibits sexuality in more detail than one might imagine the Bible would contain, but it is interesting why it should be read individually only and not aloud.

Scripture as Spoken Word

2008-04-03T20:18:00.005-04:00

I found Luther's identification with the oral gospel to remind me alot of the Jewish Oral Torah. I feel this connection is most vivid in Luther's proclamation that an "oral gospel" should exist and convey the Bible yet not be committed to writing. I think this also highlights an interesting and common theme in Scripture that Graham mentions which is the inseparable relationship oral scripture shares with its written manuscript form which almost always appears later. In Islam, Judaism and to lesser extent Christianity the aural recitation of scripture is considered as reflecting piety and the maintaining of tradition. Of the these religions Christianity seems the most rooted in its primary sources - the written New Testament - and have the least focus in oral and secondary.

What is Christian Scripture?

2008-04-03T16:32:00.005-04:00

In response to JBK's question about what comprises Christian scripture, I believe that it is a combination of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament is interpreted from a Christian perspective and added to by the New Testament. Though the New Testament interprets the Old, I don't think it's fair to say that one is primary and on is secondary- each without the other would not function as Christian scripture; together they equal Christian scripture.

A passage from the reading of 1 Corinthians for tomorrow reminded me of this:

"Let me remind you, my friends, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all of them passed through the Read sea; so they all received baptism into the fellowship of Moses in cloud and sea. They all ate the same supernatural food, and all drank the same supernatural drink; for they drank from the supernatural rock that accompanied their travels - and that rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.

This passage and many like it show the New Testament's interpretation of the Old Testament. Paul adds Christian ideas and vocabulary to the Old Testament. Without this addition, the Old Testament would not be as significant to Christians- this is why I believe that both Old and New Testaments together form Christian scripture.

Christian Scripture

2008-04-03T15:32:00.003-04:00

While reading William Graham's Beyond the Written Word, I was left asking why and for what reasons was the Bible initially circulated in Greek and Latin. Even in medieval Europe, though many people were illiterate I feel that making the Bible inaccessible to 'Idiotae' just made things harder even if it did increased the papal authority of the church. Could one argue that the aural role of the Bible as described by Graham came into its modern form in part because of how it was used to spread Christian scripture in medieval Europe?

Does Jesus fulfill the Hebrew prophecy? or Does the Hebrew prophecy fulfill the life of Jesus?

2008-04-01T18:02:00.003-04:00

When professor asked us, during the class on Monday (03/31/08), if the Old Testament prophecies mentioned in the gospels were talking about Jesus, I said "YES" without thinking further about the question. Just like other Christians around the world, I strongly believe that Jesus was sent from God as the fulfillment of the Hebrew prophecy; I also believe that Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews had awaited for centuries.

Yet, Jesus was clearly neither the King Messiah nor the Priest Messiah figure who the Jews had expected to see; Jesus came neither to reconstruct the temple of Jerusalem nor to fight against the Roman Government. Moreover, various historians/scholars have argued that a number of fulfillment citations found in the gospels were not related to Jesus/the future Messiah at all.
For example, both Mark and Luke claim that Jesus was born of a virgin referencing Isaiah 7:14, but the scholars have pointed out that Isaiah 7:14 is not about virginal conception (it is about God's destroying the armies of Syria & Northern Israel).Therefore, some concluded that the Old Testament prophecies were reinterpreted to fit Christians' beliefs in Jesus (after Jesus' crucifixion or... resurrection).

As a Christian, I cannot agree that the authors of the gospels had reinterpreted the Hebrew prophecy to make a random person the future Messiah depicted in the Old Testament.
However, I respect that everyone has his/her own belief and opinion about anything. So, which do you think came first, Jesus or the Hebrew prophecy.... and how do you think, your answer is going to affect all the Christians around the world?

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

2008-04-01T18:00:00.002-04:00

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who has been depicted as the Son of Man, the Son of God, the King of Jews, and the Messiah. However, each gospel presents its own version of Jesus Christ which is slightly different from one another (each gospel tells us different details about the life of Jesus).

I understand that it is because each gospel is written by a different author who had a different purpose and opinion about Jesus. However, I wonder, if the vast majority of Christians actually believe that the gospels were written by people (not by God or by the inspiration of God) that the gospels (the words of God) even contain numerous errors made by those authors.

I personally believe that the bible, the gospels were written by the inspiration of God through those authors. However, I realized that the majority of Christians are not willing to admit that the holy scriptures were actually written by humans (they tend not to think about the origin of the bible).

Do you think that the fact that the bible was written by humans, (or the fact that those gospels were written by mysterious people) can affect one’s belief in Jesus Christ?

Qur’an and Woman by Wadud Muhsin

2008-04-01T17:57:00.001-04:00

Wadud Muhsin, the author of Qur’an and Woman, provides her interpretations of specific texts and key words which have been used to justify the unequal treatment and violence towards women in Islamic culture. By revealing the original meanings of those texts and key words, Muhsin argues that the Qur’an both affirms and ensures woman’s equal status with man.

I agree that everyone has his or her own version of examination and interpretation of religious texts. Yet, I wonder, if Muhsin’s reexamination and reinterpretation of Qur’an can be fully accepted/truly effective in Muslim communities. I also would like to know, if the book, Qur’an and Woman is initially aimed at a Muslim audience or a non-Muslim audience.

Is Muhsin telling Muslim men not to mistreat women due to their misinterpretations of the Qur’an? Is Muhsin telling Muslim women that the Qur’an grants women equal rights with men? Or, is she telling non-Muslims not to misunderstand Islam due to Muslims’ misinterpretations of the Qur’an (the mistreatment of Muslim women in the Muslim world due to misinterpretations of the Qur’an)?

Christian Scripture

2008-04-01T15:14:00.003-04:00

In response to JBK, I believe that Christian Scripture is mainly about "the dynamic personality of Jesus Christ himself" and the way the different writers of the New Testament Gospels interpret his life. For example, Mark does not begin Jesus' life story until he is baptised by John, while Matthew and Luke begin with Jesus' birth, and finally John begins with the creation of the universe. For Mark, Jesus is secretive and does not want news of his miracles to be spread around. However, for John, Jesus is the exact opposite as the man described by Mark, constantly talking about himself, as seen in his "I am" statements. These are just a few examples of how these authors attempt to describe Jesus' "dynamic personality" that I think Christian scripture tends to revolve around.

Jesus was Buddhist

2008-04-01T14:38:00.005-04:00

When we talking about Jesus as scripture yesterday in class in reiterated many similarities I see between the life of Jesus and stories of Tibetan Buddhist yogis we have been looking at in Buddhism. I am really interested in ideas of interfaith and find very interesting that Jesus holds true to ideals sought in other religions.

Wandering in the desert for forty days and forty nights is very similar to a yogi's retreat. Jesus had many visions during this time of things that transcended reality. This is very common in the meditation of yogis. Jesus also had the ability to perform miracles and transcend reality. There are many stories about yogis who left behind footprints or body impressions during their meditations, as well as yogis who were able to perform other miracles.

Jesus also becomes the prime moral example like many yogis. His value on compassion and turning the other cheek ring very true for Buddhists.

The exception is that yogis take disciples and teach their advanced practices to younger generations. Looking at that as an example, I wonder did the historical Jesus want us to worship him as the exemplary or did he intend to create a new tradition of Christian yogis?

Christian Scripture

2008-04-01T01:25:00.004-04:00

JBK posted very interesting questions. Even though we talked about Christian scripture in class yesterday, I still have some issues with it. Christians seem to rely on the New Testament scripture more than the Old Testament one. I think Christian scripture is both New Testament and Old Testament. But I noticed that many Christians think that the New Testament is the most important scripture of the two. Also, I noticed that some Christians do not see the Old Testament as the same as the Hebrew Bible because they perhaps do not want to rely on the interpretations of the Jewish scripture. As a Christian I personally enjoy reading the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) because its stories are more interesting than those of the New Testament.

Writing Style

2008-03-31T22:13:00.003-04:00

I have found that the writing style of the New Testament is very different than that of the Old Testament, I don't know if anyone else has found this to be true? It keep feeling as though I'm reading a contemporary story instead of an extremely old text. This could be attributed to the translation of the text but it just seems to flow differently than the old testament. The old testament read slightly slower and kept having a genealogical element to it that the new testament does not have. Does the mean that the teachings of Jesus valued less one's family history than the Jews did? I have found that that main family references are that Jesus is the son of God and thats about it. Does the difference in writing style have anything to do with trying to stray away from the Jewish text and to try and differentiate it? Or is it just the time that it was written in and this is the style?

Pilate

2008-03-30T18:56:00.002-04:00

Reading Luke 23-24 reminded me of my confusion about the role of Pilate in the New Testament. Often times in literary allusions Pilate has an extremely negative connotation and he is made out to be the "bad guy" in the situation. However, Luke reminds us that Pilate argued that Jesus had done nothing wrong; he wanted to flog him and let him go. It was the crowd who insisted that Jesus be crucified and Pilate eventually gave in. Is it because he had the final word that he is portrayed negatively? What does this confusion have to do with Jewish/Christian relations today?

New Testament: Primary or Secondary Scripture?

2008-03-30T18:39:00.005-04:00

Is the New Testament a "primary" or "secondary" Scripture, according to William Graham's distinction in his article on Scripture in the Encyclopedia of Religion? I ask because the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament seem nearly always to be interpreting something else. Sometimes it's interpreting passages from the Hebrew Bible, like the verses from Isaiah in Mk 4:12ff, or the Exodus story of the manna, the "bread from heaven" in John 6. Or more often than not, it's interpreting the sayings and biography of Jesus. In that sense, it seems that the sayings of Jesus (and his actions) are an "oral scripture" which the NT painstakingly preserves, interprets, and otherwise "relates to" as Scripture. And it treats the "Old Testament" verses as scripture by quoting them as prooftexts, or prophetic promises that are fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Jesus' sayings and actions become a sort of interpretative key for understanding the "true meaning" of the Old Testament - namely, that it's always referring to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. So what exactly is Christian Scripture: the Old Testament, the New Testament, or in a sense, the dynamic personality of Jesus Christ himself? Or is it better to say that these are Christian Scriptures only when they're taken together, sort of like the Written and Oral Torahs of rabbinic Judaism? It that's the case, is it correct or even helpful to describe them as primary and secondary scriptures with respect to one other, and if so which is which to which? Finally, if Jesus' dynamic personality can be considered a sort of "Scripture" in terms of the way it functions in a Christian religious worldview, what advantage might that be over scripture as a written text?

Sura 4:1

2008-03-25T00:40:00.003-04:00

I really enjoyed our conversation class today about the different meanings of the arabic words that are part of the sura. It is clear that in the quran the authors incorporate feminine word meanings as there way of including women in the quran. I think because this way of incorporating women in to the quran makes it harder to clearly see a womans role and it can be interpreted as women are not included at all, which is clearly not the truth.

Qur'an and Woman

2008-03-20T15:13:00.004-04:00

While reading Qur'an and Woman, I came up with a similar question to the one posted about women in Judaism. Muhsin says, "The existence of one in such a pair is contingent upon the other in our known world. These are the Qur'anic pairs. Night flows into day; the male is irrevocably linked with the female as man is compatibly linked with woman" (21).

Though Muhsin is trying to show that this idea of pairs shows equality between men and women - each is equally important to the pair - this could be a dangerous perspective. What does this idea mean for homosexuals or people who choose not to marry? Is a man without a woman incomplete; is a woman without a man incomplete?

Averroes: The Decisive Treatise

2008-03-18T10:13:00.004-04:00

This treatise seems to say that philosophy is not only allowed by the Law, but demanded by it. However, it concludes by saying, "Thus whoever tampers with them, by making an interpretation not apparent in itself, or [at any rate] more apparent to everyone than they are (and that [greater apparency] is something nonexistent), is rejecting [25] their wisdom and rejecting their intended effects in procuring human happiness (184).

How is one to determine whether an interpretation is "apparent" or not? This treatise seems to believe it has solved the problem of philosophy and religion, but who can judge this matter of "apparent interpretation" when everyone has his or her own perspective?

How does this idea relate to Midrash and the arguments of interpretation?

Islam and the Qur'an

2008-03-17T19:34:00.003-04:00

Between listening to our in-class speaker from before spring break and the recent readings and Suras that we were assigned, I better understand how the Qur’an can be interpreted in different ways (besides the fact that there are so many different sources of translations and in many different languages). On the news all we hear about is how Islam and the teachings of the Qur’an are used to inflict violence and advocate morally unjust values, but this is mainly an interpretation by either extremists, the misinformed or simply ignorant people. Just like Christianity and Judaism, Islam can be used productively as far as providing common interests, a community, a sense of belonging and a set of good values to live by. Like the other two, it can also be used for personal gain and violence. I, for one, think that the words and art that I have seen from the Qur’an are beautiful and thought provoking. It is more than unfortunate that Islam has been put in a defensive position just because a loud group of fundamentalists have been exploiting its name.

Islamic Art and Rules

2008-03-07T01:21:00.004-05:00

It was very interesting to learn and know the rules of what kinds of pictures and drawings are not or accepted in Muslim homes and places of worship. I know that calligraphy is a very important kind of art in decorating Mosque . The reading mentioned that Muslims have to be careful about their way of displaying pictures because most prayers are done at Muslim homes. I did not know that display of images and pictures of prophets are forbidden in Islam. I thought Mosques were decorated with pictures of people, animals and other things when I looked them (Mosques) from outside. In Islam, “Statues are believed to bring danger of idolatry” (JCM, 407). It seemed to me that Islam is the only Religion, which rejects statues and display of human and animal pictures in Muslim homes. But I was wondering about Muslim leaders who have their statues displayed everywhere in their countries. How does Islam consider those statues? What kinds of materials besides Arabic letters are used to embellish Muslim Mosques?

Understanding the Qur'an

2008-03-06T17:44:00.006-05:00

The experience of the Qur’an in traditional Islamic countries is different from Western attempts to read it as a story with a beginning, middle, and end. For all Muslims, the Qur’an is first experienced in Arabic. When they are learning the Suras, they are not memorizing them like Westerners would, Sells says they are interiorizing the inner rhythms, sound patterns, and textual dynamics-taking it to heart in the deepest manner.

In response to JBK's post, Sells says "the Qur'anic sound figures occur in connection with 3 moments: prophecy, creation, and the day of reckoning. Because the Qur’anic experience is not about reading the text from beginning to end, one does not need to be a Muslim to have this experience, but I believe that one has to act like a Muslim and be open to reciting the text, just as Muslims do. This is because when you read the Qur'an, these 3 moments appear seperate. However, they become intertwined when they are said in Qur'anic recitation. Sells also references gender as a major aspect of Qur'anic sound figures. Although books like the Bible and Torah are male dominated, the Qur'an is gender balanced. He also talks about how the word spirit in Arabic can be both masculine and feminine. If the Qur'an lost these sound figures, it would ultimately damage the way Islam is perceived to treat women in society.

Believe in one God? or the same God?

2008-03-04T17:01:00.005-05:00

After I finished reading JCM chapter 6, “Monotheism in Islam,” I came up with one serious question.

Do Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in the same God?

When President Bush was asked by the same question 3 years ago, President Bush replied, “I believe we worship the same God.”
Scripturally, the Quran is known to insist that its God is the same as the God of Judaism and Christianity; Chronologically, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all recognize Abraham as the first generation.

If President Bush is right, then, why do the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, the God of Israel, known as YHWH, and the Christian God, known as God the Father, seem so different from one anther (honestly, I do not see the difference between YHWH and the God the Father. However, the Moon God of Mecca seems so separated from the other two)?

Why do we believe in different doctrines and practices if Allah, YHWH, and God the Father (Jehovah) are the same Supreme Being? Why do we use different scriptures? Why are those different scriptures (the Torah, Qu’ran, and the New Testament) written in different styles if they have been come from the same God?

Why are they so different while believing in the same God?

Revelation of the Qur'an on an Experiential Level

2008-03-03T09:19:00.004-05:00

Nearly all of the scholars we've read on the Qur'an refer to its emotional effect on Muslim believers when they recite or hear it being recited. Its sacred qualities as revelation have been described by Muslims as wahy "a sort of idea-word inspiration that came upon Muhammad's 'heart,' as the Qur'an itself declares (26:192-195) [Corrigan et al., p. 60], or ijaz "inimitability," or the Quranic "voice" nazm (its distinctive style of sound and composition) [Sells (2005), p.184]- qualities that apparently are accessible more on an experiential level than a purely analytical or intellectual one. And also, accessible only in its original Arabic.

That being said, Michael Sells in Approaching the Qur'an (and many others), still tries to point to specific features in the form and sounds of the text of the Qur'an, and the ways it is recited and heard, that convey these rather intangible qualities of what Andrew in class called the Qur'an's "sacrality." What are the specific, precise features we can point to in the Qur'an itself, and/or the way Muslims relate to it, that both Muslims and non-Muslims could equally recognize as features of a sacred scripture? How would you as a critical interpreter of religions explain to a non-Muslim what in the text itself makes the Qur'an sacred? Is the experience of the Qur'an as a sacred scripture something only Muslims can know or feel?

Sells suggests that the Qur'an's understanding of "spirit" - ruh in Arabic - is a particularly good example of the distinctively sacred way the Qur'an conveys its message:

One key aspect of Qur'anic articulation is the sound figure. The sound figure is particularly subtle. It is developed within particular Suras (intratextually) and across Suras that are widely separated in the written version of the Qur'an (intertextually)...The Qur'anic sound figures occur in connection with three moments: prophecy, creation, and the day of reckoning. These are boundary moments, points of contact between eternal and temporal realms, in which the structures of language (with temporality built into them) are transformed through contact with a realm beyond temporality. In each moment, the Qur'an invokes the spirit (ruh). [p. 185, my emphasis].

What is he talking about? What are examples of these "sound figures?" (E.g., in Sura 97, the Sura of Destiny "al-Qadr" [go to pages 31 and 32]) And are the "sound figures" structures of language that are universally accessible, i.e., for which one need not be a Muslim to see, hear, and experience? Is the expression of ideas through sound figures the Qur'an's distinctively sacred mode of expression? Is this similar or different to the main ways Jews have classically related to the Torah as a sacred scripture?

Qur'an as the Word of God

2008-02-26T23:07:00.004-05:00

The section in chapter three of JCM brought up some interesting questions for me. Because Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God, revealed to his Prophet, how do they respond to the fact that men were the ones to actually write the text? Is there any acknowledgment of the possibility of error in writing and translating? This chapter raised at least four processes in which the original text or original oral word could have been distorted:

1.) Oral transmission
2.) Pulling together the multiple versions of oral tradition into text
3.) Adding consonants to the text (if a word was misinterpreted this could change the meaning)
4.) Translating the text from Arabic to English and other languages.

How do Muslims respond to these problems? The same could be asked for Jews and Christians, as the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts underwent the same processes.

Absolute Israel?

2008-02-20T01:39:00.004-05:00

I have no knowledge of the Bundists (Jewish Socialists), given that I had never heard of the sect before reading about them in JCM, so I’m only going to address Zionists. Regardless, did anyone else find it very strange that, “Zionists often abandoned belief in God altogether?” (JCM 97).

According to JCM to Zionists, “Israel ceased to be the Bible’s ‘kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ Instead it was conceived as a historical community of language and blood-relationship analogous to the emerging national groups of Europe” (97). Yet the Jewish State that is called Israel today is the ancient land cited in the Bible/Torah, which in turn is believed by most Jews to be, if not the word of God, a summation of what he said to the Jewish people all those years ago. Why then chose to set up this new nation on the very place that was promised to the Jewish people by God? It just seems very contradictory to the Zionist movement.

What’s even more interesting to note are Jew’s reactions to the Zionist movement. There’s me, where I don’t believe that Israel will ever completely be a Jewish nation until some Godly-type event makes it possible (Coming of the Messiah, Apocalypse, whatever, I don’t really know what). But so long as there are Jews in Israel, there is a compelling argument to support their cause and existence there, while still being mindful of non-Jews claim to the area.

Then there is the group Neturei Karta, who are Jews who are adamantly opposed to the creation of a Jewish state. In fact, they believe that Israel’s existence is sinful as well as the belief in it. Terribly vague I know but go here to get a full run down on the group.

It just seems very strange looking at it that a “Jewish Nation” was created by a movement who fundamentally don’t really seem “Jewish.”

Shakin' the Reformation: Music in Judaism

2008-02-19T15:30:00.003-05:00

Growing up, I remember going to synagogue with my family and hearing the thunderous and beautiful tones of the organ. I was surprised to read today that music was initially regarded as –halakhically, wrong to play on the Sabbath day. “Restraint from music making on the Sabbath was part of the Sabbath avodah” (JCM, 229) I was relieved when I read that to members of the reformed movement, this particular law was not seen as a sanctification of the Sabbath, but rather a deprivation of human enjoyment. The sounds of the organ always struck deep into my soul, allowing me to connect with my religion at a young age. Although now I do not consider myself a deeply religious person, I consider myself quite connected with a higher power. I am glad that the reformers of the 19^th century (I believe) decided not to compromise on this matter. What would temple be without song, dance, and chanting? For me, it wouldn’t be the same. Without these integral parts of the social, and communal dimensions of religion, Judaism would be missing something. I know I can always connect to people of any congregation through the commonly shared Jewish songs and daces. Perhaps it was the reverberations of the organ, which drove me to devote my scholastic career to the study of religion.

Like Bread on the Seder Plate

2008-02-19T13:09:00.003-05:00

I just wanted to post this picture to go along with my comment to Sophie's post. If you're interested in Jewish feminism, this is a good book to read.

Shouldnt Grandma get to study the torah too?

2008-02-17T19:32:00.005-05:00

In the last week as we read about the roles of women in both the bible and jewish culture I found it slightly disturbing that there is such a disparity between men and women when it comes to learning about torah. Stereotypes of judaism are always about the role of the jewish mother. She nags you, feeds you too much, never likes your boyfriend (unless he is from a good jewish family), uses the mothers guilt, is nosey. These are all stereotypes of jewish mothers that I have heard, however the role of the mother in the family life of jews seems to be very important if there are so many stereotypes about them. I have found that generally something does not get a stereotype if it does not make a lasting impression, well it seems to me that women of the jewish faith have left an impression

I was stunned during the scene in the film that we watched when all the women were praying at the wall in Jerusalem and men were protesting them and yelling for them to leave. I would think that these men would want the women that they value so much to be able to have the same experience as they do with the torah. It seems as if it is a selfish thing one is doing to deny women the right to study the torah, did these men ever think that they may have been getting the analysis wrong all these years? And that a woman may shine some new light on the study? Rejecting women and separating them during certain services and studies only perpetuates old world sexism and male hierarchy. I mean if a man loves his bubbie so much wouldn't he want her to be able to connect with the torah as he has?

Messianism in Judaism

2008-02-15T15:19:00.003-05:00

After reading chapter four in JCM, I'm still unclear about the place of Messianism within Judaism. The chapter explained the history of messianic views and some messianic movements, but how do Jews today respond to this? Are Jews still waiting for a Messiah?

Perhaps modern Jews take the Messianic promises of the Bible to mean the people of Israel or as something less concrete, as JCM says, "...the title of Messiah is ascribed to King David...the term also refers to all descendents of David's line who sat on his throne" (78). Can anyone help clarify what the state of Messianism is in Judaism today? Or is it different for all people and denominations?

A Woman's Religion

2008-02-14T22:40:00.007-05:00

Is it possible that women have escaped mention in the Torah because they could have had a religion seperate from the men? I wonder if women did, in the time the Bible was written, have a religion of oral traditions passed down from mother to daughter that remained apart from the God of fathers and men. Usually in the Bible, as God is listing his references, he calls himself the God of Jacob or Isaac or Abraham and every once in a while will mention a matriarch like Rebecca. I wonder if this is at possible because the god we now know as God, YHWH, was perhaps a god of men. At a time when women's work and men's work was very seperate, it seems that it could be possible that there could have been seperate gods for the very different functions needed by each gender. Maybe women worshipped a goddess of fertility, pregnancy, childbirth or menstruation. I would also assume that men were more likely to write down their myths because they were the ones with access to an education, while I would assume practically all women were illiterate.

I know that it is true that the Judaism were understand as eventually written down as the Torah evolved slowly from a polytheistic religion indigenous to the area surrounding Isreal. I just wonder if perhaps this polytheism or at least the worship of a female deity could have lasted longer among female populations since their work was so often seperate from men's.

If this is true, I wonder how impossible it would be to add some of these traditions back into Judaism...in the time of early Christianity, all those who did attempt to add the feminine priniciple back into the idea of a divine failed...

Jewish Women and the Torah

2008-02-12T16:21:00.000-05:00

In response to this week's question, I think that Jewish women try to have the same relationship to the Torah as Jewish men do, but are often prevented or looked down upon by men for doing so, as shown in Half the Kingdom. I do no believe that studying the Torah is the only way these women can relate to scripture. However, although JBK referenced making challah, cooking kosher meals, and teaching children Bible stories and domestic traditions as other ways of relating to Torah, I think after listening to all of the women’s stories and how emotional they got when they were able to read and touch the Torah for the first time, it is evident that these other ways of relating to Torah simply aren’t enough for these women. I thought this need to relate to the Torah was accurately conveyed in the movie by one woman’s comment about how we should not be holding on to 2,000 year old traditions that are discriminatory. I believe these women just want to be on equal footing with the men in their society, and although they are relating to the Torah with these other practices, the actual act of being given the right to study it seems to be a source of empowerment for them. In response to whether or not the devotion to Torah study is out of touch with reality, I believe for people who are not part of that religion it seems like it would be out of touch with reality, but for them it is normal. They may see a lot of things that we do as being out of touch with reality. For them, the Torah is their reality, meaning that as long as it continues to be studied, readers will always be left with a derogatory view of women. I agreed with one of the women from Half the Kingdom who offered a possible solution to this situation by saying that we can’t hang onto these male texts. We need to find womens texts to study from and write new texts. Until this happens, Jewish women will constantly be fighting for equal rights.

Jewish Women and Judaism

2008-02-11T21:51:00.000-05:00

I always think of my tradition (Southern Sudanese) as a discriminatory tradition because women are prevented to do certain things (because they are not basically as smart as men). Even though I watched the first movie wandering why there were no Jewish women studying the Torah, I did not expect that Jewish women would almost not be allowed to study the laws that played the important roles in the history of their tradition. But today in class I wandered more by seeing women in one of the great tradition (Judaism) challenging the way they were not encouraged to learning the Torah.

It was a fascinating movie because the women tried hard to find their common ground between religious and historical tradition. I thought the women played an important role not only by praying at the Holly Wall in Jerusalem (to show the men they are part of this tradition), but also addressing the issues of their religious civil rights, and the struggle for self-definition in a man dominant tradition and religion. I do not know why Judaism does not allow women to study and learn the Torah, Is it because God created man and woman differently or was this created by men who wrote or interpreted the Torah? Did God prohibit Jewish women from studying the Torah, or did this develop over the years of Jewish traditional change?

Who's wrong in the eyes of God?

2008-02-11T19:16:00.000-05:00

I believe that both Jewish men and women have the same relationships to the Torah in a way that they perceive the Torah as the bridge which connects the Jew and God. It is undeniable fact that the Torah has been the core of Judaism; the individual’s attempt to develop and deepen his or her personal relationship with God through studying of Torah, explains why the importance of Torah study has been stressing out among the different Jewish communities around the world.

After watching the video “The Torah and the Scholar Today,” I could completely understand the significant meaning(s) of Torah study within the Jewish society. Through watching the video, I learned that the importance of Torah study comes not only from one’s sincere desire to appreciate (or to learn more about) YHWH, but also from one’s duty, as a Jew, to preserve a special relationship that the one true God of Israel had made with the Jewish people in the ancient past. Therefore, it was not so hard to understand Jewish women’s desperation to study (or even to read) Torah while watching the video, “Half the Kingdom.”

However, while watching several women’s “unbreakable will” against their own ethical traditions, I thought of a small possibility that some of the women could have used the notion of Torah study as a weapon to fulfil one's own desire (to build a strong relationship with God or to justify gender equality to the Jewish men) whether their society or ethical traditions approve it or not.

I strongly believe that those women have every right to claim their rights and duties to worship and learn about God who loves and treats them equally as He does to men; I believe that no man has a right to stop anyone from performing religious acts. However, when I was watching the part where Jewish men were yelling at or disapproving women’s reading the Torah (or performing religious practice) in public, I wondered how God would respond to their behaviors.

Would God say that those men had a right to disapprove women’s mere desire to worship Him in public? Or, would God say that those women had a right to disorganize the society and disobey their husbands in order to worship Him in public?

I do not know what God truly wants His people to do. However, I am sure God would not want His beloved people to either discriminate one another due to gender difference or violate one’s traditional role to fulfill one’s own desire.

Video Response

2008-02-11T18:10:00.000-05:00

I thought that the video today was interesting. When I was in Jerusalem during the winter break, we went to the Kotel (Western Wall) and I was able to see how it was sectioned off for men and women and I can remember thinking how it seemed odd that the wall, one of the most sacred landmarks in the world for the Jewish people, was sectioned so that women had a little piece of the wall to go up to and the men had a long stretch of it followed by an entrance to the left where you could go inside and see the tunnels. I agreed with the speaker from the video who said that the traditions did not need to be lost, but need to adapt to include all Jews, which include women. We were also at a Kibbutz where we had Shabbat services and the Reform Rabbi was a woman. I have been to few Shabbat services, but I thought that this one was very nice. What was interesting was that a girl next to me said, "I am all for women's rights and everything, but I have had a male Rabbi my whole life and having services with a women just isn't the same for me..." There was another part of the trip, which I was reminded of from the video we watched today. I am referring to the part where we saw how the woman was segregated from the group of men, behind a sheet or curtain, while singing, and she was interviewed on how that made her feel. Back to the Israel trip, we visited a mosque in Ein Rafa where we saw a section enclosed with cloth. Someone from the group asked why that was and the man who was answering questions and talking to the group about how Islam works and its role in Israel and the world answered that the women had to pray in a different section because if the men saw them during prayer, it could distract them, giving them impure thoughts and disturbing the state in which they need to be in to respectfully pray, that it was not being sexist. This seems different from the situation addressed in the video, but it made me wonder: If in the mosque they separate women from men to keep them in a pure state during prayer... couldn't there also be a good reason why there is separation in Judaism?

Women in Judaism

2008-02-11T11:51:00.000-05:00

In response to JBK's question, I think men and women definitely have distinct relationships with Torah. This distinction can be on many levels, starting with the fact that men have traditionally been encouraged to study Torah, while women have not. But even those women who do study Torah have a different relationship with it because, as the professor in "Half the Kingdom" stated, the texts were written and studied by men. Another woman believed that women were not absent from the writing process, but were involved indirectly. Because of this, women studying Torah need to search for the woman's voice.

I can understand the traditional concept that men and women have different roles: men worship though study of Torah while women worship through their domestic tasks. Just the fact that men and women have separate roles does not mean that one is naturally superior. But it is when Torah study is seen as the ultimate goal and glory of a Jew's life that the women's role seems inferior. I was struck by the woman in the film who said that women are worshiped in Israel as mothers and wives, but not as individuals. This shows that women are not viewed negatively, they are worshiped even, but their whole being is not considered, only their ability to become wife and mother. As I learned in the Religion and Sexuality class, this view is extremely difficult for women who don't fit this role, such as lesbian Jews or women who cannot or chose not to conceive.

While I think that Jewish women need to look for change, I did not, however, agree with everything the professor in the film had to say. Because some scripture and tradition contains sentiments that might be offensive to women, does this mean that we should get rid of all scripture and traditions? Where does one draw the fine line between making positive changes to a religion and distorting it? I agree with the approach of the orthodox woman who studied Torah with a women's group. Women shouldn't disregard Torah, but should deal with the parts that upset them, and find their voice within it.

The Ten Commandments and Laws

2008-02-09T11:40:00.000-05:00

After reading the ten commandments and the other laws that are given in the torah, to me it is much like a reading a handbook for a lifestyle than anything else. Many of the laws are about creating a "meal" so to speak so that it is holy in the eyes of God, as well as rules about governing ones self with others. These laws seem like guidelines as to how to be holy in the eyes of God and make ones self like him (which in the end is the ultimate goal I guess). However, the thing about these laws is that they can be very hard to follow at times. I mean when you are growing up its hard to not want to disrespect your parents (its a natural tendency I think for most), it also seems like the laws are challenges for the israelites to see if they can really live up to the image of God. The laws may seem simple but when you look closely at ones day to day life, I think that it would be really hard to constantly follow the ten commandments!

The Torah and Jewish Women and Men

2008-02-08T16:26:00.000-05:00

If Scripture is a “relational concept” and the Torah and Talmud are Jewish scriptures, do Jewish men and women have the same relationship to the Torah?

After watching the video The Torah and the Scholar today, it’s hard not to wonder whether Jewish women have any relationship with the Torah at all. In the video we saw only males engaged with one another studying Torah (even when Rabbi Steinsaltz was teaching a class to non-religious Jews), and women only as brides, or praying and celebrating separately from the men. At the Wailing Wall, the men and women were separated by a barrier, the mehitzah (though in an older photo, men and women were praying together at the wall with no barrier). On the other hand, Rabbi Steinsaltz commented that his wife would like doing his type of work much more than he does. Didn’t you wonder why Mrs. Steinsaltz didn’t do his work -promoting and teaching the study of Talmud? And in the next movie we see, Half the Kingdom, we’ll observe Jewish women intentionally breaking down the barriers that have kept them from studying Torah and worshipping like Jewish men. It’s possible that the picture we get of Jewish women’s relationships to the Torah is skewed by the cultural and ideological biases of the filmmakers. Inspired by a romanticized ideal of male Torah learning, it probably didn’t even occur to the director of the Talmud and The Scholar to film women studying with women or at the women’s yeshivot that Vanessa Ochs describes in Words on Fire, or women engaged in Torah in other venues or in other ways. Aren’t making challah, cooking kosher meals, or teaching children Bible stories and domestic traditions other ways of relating to Torah? Is indeed study the only or most appropriate way for Jews to relate to their scriptures? That seems to be the ideological bias underlying the focus on Jewish women’s Torah study in Half the Kingdom. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m inclined to agree. But didn’t we all sort of gasp as the yeshivah boys who knew more about the Talmud than current movies and pop music, or the rabbi who studied Talmud maybe 12+ hours a day? Isn’t such devotion to Torah study, whether by men or women, a little out of touch with reality?!

What I’d like you to think about and reflect upon this week is
1) Do Jewish women and men indeed have the same or different relationships to the Torah (based on what you see in the videos and in the readings)?
2) What historical and cultural factors do you see that make Jewish men and Jewish women hold up Torah study as the ideal relationship of Jews to the Torah (as opposed to other ways of relating to the Torah, or of not really relating to it all)?

In other words. why Torah study, and why men and/or women stressing the importance of Torah study now (in 20th-21st century America, Israel, Russia)?

The Ten Commandment Lessons

2008-02-06T00:12:00.000-05:00

The lessons God gave the Israelites after the Ten Commandments changed their lives. I am not sure, but were the Ten Commandments given to make the Israelites’ lives hard or to warm them of dangers and to show them the safe ways to go in? God also made it difficult for the Israelites to live new life. In (Deuteronomy 6 verses 6-9), I think God forced the Israelite parents and adults to must talk with the children about God’s laws. The Israelites must write words on doorposts and on gates. If the children did break the laws, who would God punish, the children, the parents, or even all the Israelites? The chaotic narrative of the transmission of the Ten Commandments is complicated. Who actually heard and saw God? Why would God want to speak to Moses, but intended the Israelites to hear the words of laws? Basically all of this seemed ambiguous in the reading.

Torah

2008-02-05T23:22:00.000-05:00

Question: Is the torah law, ritual, instruction, or narrative? What does the hebrew word "torah" mean in the book of Leviticus? What kinds of things "count" as torah, and what is (are) their purposes? Who is to speak these examples of "torah" and to whom are they addressed? Do the Biblical narratives in Genesis that we read, and the rules that we read in Leviticus, have anything common so that it would make sense to call both "torah?"

In Hebrew the word torah means "word of God." I feel that it could be assumed that the torah is a book of laws, filled with instructions of how to live a good and prosperous life with rituals and is presented in a narrative form with lessons within the stories. Depending on the context, one can read the torah and find its laws, rituals and instructions, but they are consistently conveyed through stories and messages. Leviticus talks about rituals ranging from cleanliness and atonement to circumcision and it talks about how you cannot eat "unclean" foods such as shellfish and pork, for example.

The words from the torah are primarily directed towards the people of Israel, but I am not quite sure what kinds of things "count" as torah and who may "speak the examples." I would assume it is for the descendants of Israel (Jacob). The torah is for people loyal to God, who believe in the word of God.

Genesis is basically a history of the creation focusing on the covenants and linking God to his "chosen people." This can be considered torah. According to my definition of what torah is above, Leviticus should certainly be considered torah because it contains both laws and rituals, but it can be argued to not be torah because Leviticus was written by man. However, the fact that it is one of the five books, which Moses wrote from his account with, God is reason enough for Leviticus to also be considered torah. Going along with my original definition, in this context, the torah is both law and ritual in a narrative form written by Moses for God.

Contradictions

2008-02-05T19:07:00.000-05:00

I know I already mentioned this in a comment to Jackie's post but I wanted to elaborate on it again here. As I'm reading the laws, and even the 10 commandments, I keep finding places that contradict previously stated laws, similar to JBK's comment about marriage. At times, stories contradict the laws in place and other times God's own actions are the opposite of what he tells the Jews to do. The 10 commandments say "Do not commit murder" (exodus 20:14). Later God commands a genocide of all peoples living in Canaan with specific instructions of who to kill and how in Deut. 7. How does a God that commands not to kill also commands the Jews "not to spare" all "Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites." The 10 commandments also protest jealousy but in Deut. 6:15, God admits to himself being a "jealous God."
This is also remniscent of what were talking about in class concerning tattoos. Many Jews do not follow the strict dietary rules in place by the Bible yet still will not bury someone in a Jewish cemetary that has a tattoo. There are chapters and chapters about rules that Jews do not follow anymore yet stay strict about a rule that makes up only one line. I could go on and on with more examples of contradictions or cases like the tattoo rule (a ban on homosexuality vs. the story of Jonathan and David, etc.) but I guess what I am getting at is, how do modern day practitioners choose? How do we decide today which laws are applicable and which side of the contradictions to choose?

The Torah

2008-02-05T16:40:00.000-05:00

Although the word “Torah” literally means “teaching,” I believe that Torah can also be authoritative at the same time through laws and rituals as shown in Leviticus. I think the teaching aspect of the Torah can be shown by God giving the rules to Moses, who in turn must teach them to the Israelites. Although this action is authoritative, at the time it was considered the best way to get across God’s will. Although the laws and teachings that the Israelites abide by have turned into rituals that still survive today, I thought it was interesting when Professor Kraus mentioned that you are no longer expected to carry out these rituals in the same manner, such as now being permitted to trim one’s beard. “You are not to cut off the hair from your temples or shave the edge of your beards.” Leviticus 19:27.
In regards to the connection between these laws and narratives, I think that it is possible to call both biblical narratives and the rules in Leviticus, Torah. Because the main element of the torah is “teaching,” I believe that both narratives and the rules in Leviticus are able to instill faith in their followers. I think the story of Genesis and the laws found in Leviticus are linked because in the beginning of Genesis, God created man and everything around him, which becomes the foundation of all the laws and instructions of Torah, which are specified in Leviticus. An important idea behind the ritual purity, as mentioned in Leviticus, comes from Genesis as well according to Greenstein in Back to the Sources. In the story of Genesis, when God created the world, he separated distinct areas and people from the dark chaos. Then in Exodus, Israel is distinguished from many nations, which governs the Torah’s ritual. The Torah divides the world into that which is Godlike and pure and that which is profane.

Torah as Law

2008-02-03T21:27:00.000-05:00

Here are some ideas and questions to think about if you respond to the reading by Edward Greenstein on Biblical law in Back to the Sources.

He says,

The Laws of the Torah are one of its means of teaching; they are the specific behaviors by which God inculcates his ways -- what we call values -- in his human creatures. If we are to understand these values we must read the laws, in a sense, as a sort of body language that outwardly symbolizes something of a much deeper significance.(p.84)

It is significant that the Hebrew word "Torah" literally means "teaching," though it seems to be used in the book of Leviticus to refer to a law or set of ritual practices, i.e., "this is the torah of the whole burnt offering...," "This is the torah of beast and fowl..." I have also discussed this peculiar use of "torah" in Leviticus here. What values do the Torah's dietary laws, the laws regarding the treatment of slaves and servants, or the laws of taking a pledge from a borrower (which Greenstein discusses) symbolize?

What exactly is the connection between these laws and the stories of the Creation, the Exodus from Egypt, or other important stories from the Biblical history of the Israelites? Do the laws of purity around the sanctuary have any connection to these stories?

Moral Questions

2008-02-03T13:18:00.000-05:00

I want to hear people's opinion on Holtz's claim that "Biblical narrative rarely moralizes. It explores moral questions, to be sure, but it is in the wit and nuance of the specific moment that one is to find the narrative's intelligence most concentrated" (63). What does this mean for modern followers of the Bible. Can we take away "morals" from the Bible? I just think this is so interesting because people usually look to the Bible for these values, and justify lifestyles based on these so-called morals.

Does Jewish Scripture have a distinctive style?

2008-02-01T10:08:00.001-05:00

Does the Hebrew Bible have a distinctive narrative style that makes it different from ordinary books? In Back to the Sources, Joel Rosenberg seems to suggest it does. What are some examples, and how do they make reading the Bible different from reading ordinary stories?

What is Scripture?

2008-02-01T09:42:00.003-05:00

About the Reading:

Friday (Jan 25, 2008)’s reading assignment, “Scripture” was useful for me to identify the meaning of scripture. This reading assignment helped me understand some general concepts about scripture, and it also assisted me to broaden my previous knowledge about scripture.

As a Christian, I had believed that scripture or sacred scripture was one of the several names that denote the Old and New Testament. However, through this reading assignment, I learned that a word, scripture not only indicates the Old and New Testament, but also can be used to describe other religious texts from many religions and spiritual movements.

It was fascinating to see how certain qualifications can differentiate scripture from ordinary books; it was very interesting to realize that one of the qualifications that scripture should have was a community. While I was reading “As a Relational Concept” part, I agreed that no text, written, oral, or both can possibly become scripture in living, subjective relationship to persons and to historical tradition in isolation from a community; I felt that this part clearly explained why scripture, even a ‘perversely false text for another’ should be considered respectable.

About the class discussion on Friday:
I agree that scripture is, and should be, distinguished from ordinary books as I strongly believe in the power of the spoken word of scripture (in a way most religious people around the world do). However, I do not necessarily believe that the book that contains the spoken word of scripture also has the inherent power. I do not use my bible in the same way I use my text books, because I know that it contains the words of God; I use my bible differently, not because I believe that it is holy, but because I believe that the words in it are holy.

Questions on the Reading:
1. What other qualifications, do you believe, scripture should have?
2. Do you believe that it is right to equally accept any scripture (from other religions)
authentically holy?