"The People of Many Books”

ANONYMOUS:

you've mentioned an important point. One or two years ago I saw a documentary on the German Nazis, the old Nazis that is, and their connections to Islam. Shorthand: (a) Nazis recruited Muslims to fight for them as mercenaries, especially on the Soviet front; (b) there were rather close ties between Muslim leaders and the Nazi party; (c) Nazis actively spread their anti-semitic ideology in Muslim communities; (d) SS-platoons went to Palestine to wait for Rommel who was in NorthAfrica at the time, while preparing to even annihilate the Jews *IN PALESTINE* together with the local Muslim authorities.

The generation of Muslims that was infused also with Nazi ideology, provided the teachers of those Muslims who are now defining Islamic affairs from their positions in the Muslim Brotherhood.

After WWII by the way German political authorities maintained their old contacts with the radical Muslims, allowed the Brotherhood to erect mosques on German soil etc.

On the "Neo-Nazis": I have a problem with the "Nazi" as part of the term "Neo-Nazi". For me the term "Nazi" stands for a group of people, a very large group of people, almost a whole country, that committed one of the most atrocious crimes in history, which was executed with ruthlessness, propaganda, technology, cruelty and cold-blooded intelligence and ideology. Calling those modern fascist 1d1ots "Neo-Nazis" would diminish and marginalize the horror of the real Nazis.

So… in any case: I don't know anything about neo-fascist movements and their current connections to radical Islam. They have similar ideologies, but the one side is strictly religious, while the other is strictly secular, apart from their "Führer cult" maybe. There were some neo-fascists who went to that absurd "Holocaust conference" in Tehran. (But then again, a few Rabbis from Israel also attended.)

I remember reading some rumors that there were loose connections between fascists and Islamists, but I've also read reports on neo-fascists beating up their fellow Muslim citizens. Fact is that these neo-fascists are not really organized as the Nazis were or as the radical Islamists are. Neo-Fascism is often a social phenomenon from disadvantaged regions, where there's not a lot of good education, from unemployment, loss of social respect etc. So they go for anything "alien" that moves. Their actions and ideologies are seldomly directed as stringently as the radical Islamist fight against Israel and the West.

Maria Janna what do you think of M u s l i m B r o t h e r h o o d --- N e o - N a z i s ?

Maria Janna what do you think of Muslim Brotherhood Neo-Nazis?

Now part 3:

On these depictions a transferral of the Jewish scroll-iconography to Christian iconography is sometimes observed. But that was a transient phenomenon. In general and in the majority, Christians were, are and have always been described and depicted as the "people of the book", whereas the Jewish people are clearly (and to this day) the "people of the scroll".

Again: this is meant as a technical and liturgical (and iconographical) statement. Of course I know perfectly well that the Jews have "the Book", the Jewish Bible, their book, the oldest of the modern monotheist scriptures. But it was *written* on scrolls, not in books. So, I hope to have cleared up what I was saying before.

PS: Obviously it was the word s a r c o p h a g i

The " p h a g " in there was probably seen as an insult by the blog software. Strange new world.

Let's try part 2

In Christian iconography the Saints have always been depicted as people holding the *book*, e.g. St. Stephen. There was a short early phase in Rome, where the new Christian iconography was very popular with normal people, e.g. on Roman s a r c o p h a g i, where after canon formation you see a blend of scenes from the New Testament and the Jewish Bible, e.g. Christ plus Jonah etc.

Phew… that worked! Now for part 2.

Trying to post again (part 1):

Since Mr. Anonymous quoted some of my posts here in Jacoby's thread, and since that spawned the same responses—"Jews are the people of the book, not Christians"—I get the feeling that nobody here really understood my remark on Christians being the people of the book.

There is a general term called "book religions", which basically includes all modern religions that use writings as one of the pillars of faith. So in this very general context, Muslims, Christians and Jews alike are "people of the book". But I was talking about this on a *liturgical* and *technical* level: the Jews have always throughout history and to this day written their holy scriptures on *scrolls*. Christians however (from day one!) wrote in parchment codices, in other words: *books*. They even had a sacral "fear of the scroll", and only when book material was scarce, they used scrolls, but even only wrote on the backside. (For further info I suggest Roberts and Skeat, "The Birth of the Codex", OUP 2004.)

Why is one specific post always pending approval by the blog owner? It's the same in other threads… very strange… I'll try to post it somehow.

Quote: "People who can't take the heat of an intellectual debate really should not be participating on an international public forum such as this.

People who are looking for 'yes sir, yes sir, three bags full' responses to their comments should present their ideas to pre-school children who adore them, or sycophants who are dependent on them for whatever reason."

MJ: Quite okay. However, I have to quote also my post from the other forum:

Maria Janna wrote: "And by the way (this is an honest question): what's wrong with "Mr. Steinsaltz"? Isn't Susan Jacoby "Ms. Jacoby"? Isn't Howard Fineman "Mr. Fineman"?

If it's offensive calling Rabbi Steinsaltz "Mr. Steinsaltz", I sincerely apologize. But it's his name, isn't it? (I'm used to calling my pastor even by his first name.)"

So the above-quoted poster is correct that one should stay out of discussions like this, if one can't take the heat. But ad-hominem remarks should (if possible) be avoided. And if my "Mr. Steinsaltz"-remark was ad-hominem, I apologize. Mea culpa. No hard feelings meant. (Didn't think this would be such an issue.)

Dear Rabbi Steinsaltz

Thank you for the book suggestion you have made.

The more I hear of the rabbinic debate tradition and how in the OT the prophets argued with God (bargaining with God about how many righteous people in the sinful city would be sufficient to make God change His mind about punishing them; anger at God for a prophet was made to look foolish after he preached punishment and God changed His mind when the people repented) and a king expressed all his emotions without any political correctness to God (the Psalms come to mind, which has been a part regular of my personal worship since about the age of ten, forms an integral part of the Catholic Mass Scripture reading)I feel an ever greater sense of gratitude for the great Jewish tradition on which Christianity is built.

Thank you for continuing to build on and share the great Jewish wisdom with all the world.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

My two cents worth about heated exchanges on forums:

People who can't take the heat of an intellectual debate really should not be participating on an international public forum such as this.

People who are looking for 'yes sir, yes sir, three bags full' responses to their comments should present their ideas to pre-school children who adore them, or sycophants who are dependent on them for whatever reason.

People who can't differ with another without attacking the other person instead of expressing the ideas they disagree with should not be participating either.

People who have no idea what an intellectual debate is about should not appoint themselves as referees on this forum.

IMHO Josh is a Jew with Muslim loyalties and hatred for Christians quite uncharacteristic for a Jew in this day - neither the fierce Muslim loyalty which goes hand in hand with virulent hatred for Christians is typical.

MJ's religious affiliations is a mystery. Strange claims for a Christian Catholic. The religion portrayed comes across like an unusual mixture of Islam and Christianity.

NO! Josh and MJ are not the same persons. Even the most brilliant split personalities could not take on another like that.

maybe Josh and MJ are the same person, stirring up trouble. Maybe others are too.

Viejita del oeste:

How often do real Catholics call the Holy Land "Palestine"?

Please re-read this thread. MJ is not Catholic. There are several posters spreading their propagada of anti-semitism and anti-catholicism by pretending to be disgruntled jews and catholics.

Please carefully read their posts. They are inexperienced and are leaving loads of clues as to their identities.

Viejita del Oeste, have you read the posts? Have you seen how this thread developed? Obviously not.

Much of what I wrote are responses to Joshua's ad-hominem-, ad-fidem- and ad-religionem-remarks, whereas I originally thought we were on the same wavelength, because neither him nor me think that Judaism is "the patriarchal roots of [the Christian] faith", such as you do. But that's only what you *believe*. There is no proof, which both Joshua and I have written below.

But while he was beginning to write patronizingly and aggressively about the crimes of the Christian religions and the evil inside every Christian, I actually tried to tone it down as much as I could and not be as disrespectful as Joshua is. There is a difference between polemics based on half-knowledge and honest arguments based on facts. I have shown the latter, and neither Joshua nor the others have chosen to join a discussion. Instead they denigrate, show arrogance and disrespect, post after post. And you, Viejita, are accusing ME? Relaxing in a reality distortion field?

VDO: In my experience when someone is this rigid and unpleasant toward other religious traditions it has been indicative of a weak faith.

MJ: Well, that's exactly what I wrote just a few hours ago. Joshua has been continuously unpleasant and rigid toward Christianity, which is why I assumed that he either has a warped idea of his own faith, meaning he has a weak faith, or that his religion is not a real religion, namely only a superstition. You must have missed that point.

VDO: Are you so afraid that our beliefs and traditions can not stand up to honest scrutiny?

MJ: What people or a group of people believe is irrelevant in terms of a bigger picture. Belief is adhering to and nurturing spiritual emotions and/or following interpretations made by other people in the name of God. It's connected to indoctrination. Non-Christians can say that Christian beliefs are bull and false, and they are absolutely right, BECAUSE they BELIEVE that Christian beliefs are actually bull and false (or at least contrary to Jewish beliefs). That's enough of an argument in this context. With *faith* you're always on shaky grounds. The truth of a faith ends where the truth of another person's faith begins. But that doesn't mean that we can do without tolerance. Josh obviously thinks we can, however, which naturally produces friction. But when reading his posts, it's perfectly clear that his insults were intended.

Since faith doesn't get us anywhere in a discussion, I go for facts instead. What is actually written in the history books and in Scripture, is relevant, the original words. And they have to withstand honest scrutiny.

Traditions don't need to be scrutinized because they are… well: *traditions*. They are what they are. Traditions are not prone to such enormous amount of changes as Scripture.

Please, MJ, you probably mean well but you are making all of us Catholic Christians look rigid and judgmental. For Christ's sake, really, tone it down. There is absolutely no reason to be so disrespectful to representatives of the patriarchal roots of our faith.

In my experience when someone is this rigid and unpleasant toward other religious traditions it has been indicative of a weak faith. Are you so afraid that our beliefs and traditions can not stand up to honest scrutiny?

Well, there is a huge difference: religion of love, charity and peace it is, when you read the Gospel, but still Christians have committed many crimes and yes: killed millions. There's nowhere I've ever objected this. So our actions have not always accorded to the Christ's teachings, and therefore one could call Christians two-faced, hypocritical etc.. But this would not measure up to many Christians who really are "Christian" in a pure sense. The central point here is of course that Christianity (now Catholicism)—unlike any other religion—has the Vatican, a central religious authority, and had had political vassals throughout history who have done the dirty work for them on their orders, because the Church basically retained control over much of Europe for a long time. Such centralism makes us strong (imperial), but also vulnerable to stricture. Such a central authority is always a good bone of contention and a much better, much easier target, even if the criticism comes only from people like you, Joshua and Leah, who don't know anything but polemics, half-knowledge and platitudes. Christians—especially Catholics—have had to endure such "wise", "founded" and "constructive" criticism for ages, so you're not really causing any reaction with such nonsensical behavior.

In Judaism it's a bit different, because the crimes that you committed are in accordance to your book and also in accordance to the character of your god, who is often nothing but a criminal butcher, tyrant and oppressor. So when Jews have occpuied territories, oppressed, slaughtered and force-converted other peoples in history, and are still occupying, oppressing, killing and fighting other people and religions on this very day, they were NOT and are NOT being two-faced and hypocritical, not by a long shot: they are showing quite a large amount of religious integrity. What makes YOU two-faced and hypocritical is your historical revisionism, the veil of silence you drop onto your dark and savage history. But it IS your history, and it's also in your book, the "Old Testament", which—I have to agree—is not our book. (Although most Christians sadly think differently about this. "Sadly", because it runs contradictory to everything I know as a Catholic Christian.) Of course this doesn't mean that you as an individual are a violent person, although you're quite violent in written form.

To say in principle that Christians are per definition a violent religious group, simply because they've had a brutal history, is unfounded, not only because sin is not hereditary in a Christian context—after all we are not Christian by birth, as the Jews are Jews by birth, but only through baptism—, but also because it's simply nothing special. Violence and mass murder is part of every culture and every religion. Religions are all born through conflict and often violence, so it's quite logical that they relapsed to violence time and again throughout history. You say that we "all come out of the same box", which is untrue, because there has not been such a thing as one "same box" for ages. There are many different Christian denominations, and all of them have a different dogma, sometimes even a different book, different leaders, a different history and tradition. But that's a quite logical development, because Christianity is originally an imperial concept with wide dispersal and countless regional variants, which surfaced already during the earliest hours of this religion.

Furthermore you say that we "preach hatred" and "cause wars". We can't preach hatred, because it's not in our book. There are some hate-preaching representatives, e.g. those radical Evangelicals, who twist and warp Christian teachings, especially by utilizing the "Old Testament", which is a much more violent book (see above), but that's not the majority of Christians. And it's not even really "Christian"… it's at best "Judaeo-Christian obscurantism", if you misuse the "Old Testament" to redefine Christian teachings… but that would also miss the point, because this continuous judaization of Christianity in the Protestant camp must not be called "Christian". You wouldn't like that, and I sure as hell wouldn't like it either.

In most countries there is a separation of Church and state now, so in most cases it's categorically impossible for Christians to "cause wars". It's the secular states and alliances that cause wars, not religious authorities of Christianity. The fact that warmongers like Bush or Blair are Christians, is not the reason for their bellicose politics, although Bush has surely utilized quasi-religious propaganda for his crusade. One more argument: since Stalin was an atheist, since al-Zawahiri is a Muslim, since the oppressors in Sri Lanka are Buddhists, does that mean that all atheists, all Buddhists and all Muslims "preach hatred", "cause wars" and (want to) kill millions?

That's your "platitudes" that I meant. You are what you are… well, at least you seem to be what you seem to be: namely an ignorant dimwit. And you, the Jews, are also what you are, like any other religion. That is also historical fact. Unfortunately, the millions whom YOU have killed are also not around to scream. Their screaming is also done, was done while you killed them… and you are still killing them at this very moment in the Middle East. You are still persecuting and oppressing other religions like Christianity, killing Muslims and even Christians, burning their book, and it's not the dumb masses that do that: no, it's the fundamental Jewish intelligenzia. We've seen stuff like that in Germany 70 years ago, mind you. So you're like any other religion, any ideological movement. The only difference is that you have a construct of "nation" and "people" attached to your religion, which does make you special in a way. But it also makes you a racist bunch of mothers sui generis.

And that shows in your posts. You point your finger at another religion, call its followers bigoted, laughable, self-delusional, incomprehensible, self-righteous, profane and arrogant, but you don't realize that it's you, who's actually displaying all those traits, by pointing at us and calling us names. If someone feels such an urgent need to denigrate another religion and its followers, it can only mean that he himself has either a twisted and bastard view of his own religion, or that his religion itself is nothing but a barbaric superstition, anachronistic and incompatible to modern times.

Josh,

RE: Leah's post

I'm with Leah on this. Let the arrogant Christian go blog on one of her co-religionist's blog.

You can go there too, and correct said religionist as this presumptuous Christian stupidly tried to do with R. Steinsaltz, may G-d watch over him.

Rabbi Steinsaltz,

May G-d bless you for the great work you have done in your lifetime and will continue to do.

Josh: Please do not engage this arrogant Christian. Her continued blogging profanes this thread.

And moreover you're totally arrogant, condescending and intolerant. But I've met many Jews, who are just like you, so your behavior doesn't surprise me at all.
-----------
And I've not only met many Christians like you but so has everyone else who is not Christian, the reason being that you are a cookie cutter people. You all come out of the same box, preach the same hatred, cause the same wars.

You are what you are. That is historical fact. Unfortunately, the millions and millions whom you've killed are not around to scream. They're screaming is done, was done while you killed them.

Others, who survived following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, survived the ORthodox Christians, are spent with screaming. Now we look to those remaining in Europe and the Middle East.

As for me, I don't scream. I've found other ways.
I have nothing to say to your bigoted, insecure self. Just like any supersessionist, you will always be haunted by the dead and living superceded. Religion of love. Look at your posts. "Religion of Love" is a joke, not only for Jews, but for Muslims, and Hindus--We laugh at you. The Nazi Christians and Catholics are a recent example, but again, just look at present-day Europe.

For Muslims look at Iraq. "Religion of Love" is an alibi for an Arrogant, Bloodthirsty People.

You have the same self-delusional, incomprehensible self-righteousness as every other arrogant Christian I have ever met. Religion of blood.

No, Josh, you don't seem to understand. I didn't say that the Christian religion ACTUALLY surpassed Judaism. How can one determine such a thing? But it's the self-concept created by early Christianity, which proclaimed the "New Covenant" and the surpassing of the old religion. It's a theological concept. The "New Deal" with God. For Christians it's of course "real" (as in *theologically real*), for Jews it's not real. It's only a belief thing. You're not Christian, and you have every right to reject the New Covenant. But please don't pretend that it doesn't exist at all! It does… for every single Christian.

Josh: It is a throwback to an early period that the Jews discarded

MJ: No. It was not a throwback. The savior, the man as god (and vice versa), with apotheosis and later cult, was an originally Greek concept, perfected by the Romans with the imperial cult. Christianity was simply going with the religious vogue at the time. So there was no "throwback". "Spearhead" would be the right term.

And in general, the Messianic thought was also strong in Judaism at the time. Pro-Roman Jews even connected their Messianic tradition with the ruler cult of the Graeco-Roman sphere etc. So there were even Jews who didn't think that the concept was a "throwback".

Josh: Evidently you don't know your own theologians very well. Don't worry, the rest of us do.

MJ: Oh, I do know our theology. You're the one who doesn't, as you've proven over and over again… but still you're pointing the finger at others, e.g. when you write…

Josh: We are the people of the book. You are the people of mass murder.

MJ: (a) Jews are the people of the SCROLL, and Christians are the people of the BOOK. That's historical and present fact. (b) And mass murder is common among every culture and religion. As I've written before: just read your own holy book again. But I guess, you're one of those fanatically Anti-Christian Jewish ignorami, who e.g. snivel at the "Oremus et pro Iudaeis" and whatnot, who scream "Holocaust!" at every corner, and who are only capable of barking back with historical and religious revisionism. And moreover you're totally arrogant, condescending and intolerant. But I've met many Jews, who are just like you, so your behavior doesn't surprise me at all.

MJ

Your "religion" surpassed nothing. It is a throwback to an early period that the Jews discarded: a Mangod messiah.

Evidently you don't know your own theologians very well. Don't worry, the rest of us do.

More and more books. We are the people of the book. You are the people of mass murder.

Josh wrote: Really? Did we most recently kill six million of you? Let me know, 'cause the history books didn't record it.

And by the way: your scriptures are full of mass murder, cruelty and violence toward other peoples, almost all in the name of your god. One million killed in Ethiopia, the massacres of the people of Laish, the Benjamites, Menahem's war crimes etc. pp. ad inf.

Josh wrote: Really? Did we most recently kill six million of you? Let me know, 'cause the history books didn't record it.

Maria Janna writes: Why do so many people immediately wince with that Holocaust reflex? History is a lot more than just 1933 to 1945. I was e.g. thinking about the countless people who were killed by Jewish aggression, land seizure and forceful conversions in antiquity, e.g. during the Hasmonean expansion. And interesting enough, as soon as the Jewish people retrieved the grip on the region in the form of the modern-day state of Israel, the killing, expansion, oppression etc. started again right away. I'm not saying that it's only their fault, but to say that "history books didn't record it", is historical revisionism. Period.

Josh: We're not coming out of your book, you say?

MJ: No, I didn't say that. (???)

Josh: Your fictitious, made up Jesus fairy tale, the "Q" Gospel? A joke among jokes.

MJ: If it is really a joke or a fictitious fairy tale, then please explain to me how Christianity could not only become the biggest and most powerful religion on the planet, but could also rise by millions in a matter of a few generations, and then take over the whole of the Roman empire by storm.

By the way: you have misunderstood the "Q Gospel". The synoptics Matthew and Luke rely in large part on Mark and some sources of their own. Where Matthew and Luke coincide, scholars assume a singular older source besides Mark that both of them used. But Q is not the Ur-Gospel, it's only part of the Sondergut.

Josh: Well, you're right about one thing. "Jesus" wasn't anymore Jewish than the Flying Spagetti Monster, simply because neither existed.

Wrong due to ignorant simplification. "Jesus as a Jew" can not have existed, i.e. the literary person from the Gospel we have come to regard as "Jesus of Nazareth" has no historicity. There is not a single independent source, no evidence, nothing whatsoever. But the Christ in general is unthinkable without a historic person behind his hagiography, but under specific conditions: with very high probability he a) wasn't Jewish, b) didn't live in the Palestine region and c) didn't live in the decades covered by the gospels. But there was a historic person behind the character "Jesus", because otherwise the above-mentioned success-story of Christianity would not have been possible either. Legends were abundant during that time. So why did this one legend survive, if there's no historical truth behind it?

Josh: The Christians time and time again have proven themselves bloodthirsty murderers.

MJ: Yeah, like all human beings, including the Jews.

Josh: These are the people who cut off the hands of Indians and tied them around their necks, Indians and what are now called Pakistanis. These are the people who raped Iraq.

MJ: The Catholic Church opposed the war in Iraq, just in case you forgot. You're again simplifying badly. There are different denominations in Christianity with different histories and different kinds of violence. Since you've already mentioned it, if you look at the advances for Christian proselytization in the Americas, it's highly conspicuous that the indigenous population in Middle and South America, which was in the majority visited by missionaries from Catholic states, is still there in large numbers, albeit at the bottom of society, inferior even to the people of African descent. In North America, which was largely Protestant territory, almost all native Americans were simply massacred, not converted.

Same thing in more recent conflicts: George Bush is not a Catholic. His war in Iraq is a modern crusade of a born-again Protestant Christian. And if you look at German Nazism, it's also significant that the majority of the Protestant clergy were avid supporters of Hitler's regime and even formed many institutions for spreading the Christian faith (i.e. the Protestant faith) among Jews… while only very few German Catholic representatives supported the Nazis.

Josh: Your theft of our religion, of our lives, is the inaugural racism, murderous racism of the West.

MJ: Again too much simplification. Racism is the result of separatist and exclusionist thinking. If your religion is fragmented like all those Protestant denominations, or if your religion is only for a few chosen people, then it can nurture racism. Nations, nationalism (including zionism) and modern racism surfaced in Europe as the imperial Catholic Church was being pushed back due to Luther's and his successors' reformations. But the Catholic Church is "catholic", i.e. all-encompassing and universal. It is an imperial religion, in stark constrast to Protestant small-scale triviality and lack of tradition, and also in stark contrast to Jewish nationalism and ancient Jewish proto-nationalism. It's empire versus people, empire versus nation. So I actually doubt that one can really use Protestantism or Jewry to create a comparison with Catholicism. Apples and oranges. If anything, the Catholic religion can only be compared to Islam, because Islam also has imperial tendencies (Caliphate etc.).

Josh: Your theft of our religion, of our lives

MJ: It's a lot more complicated than that. The Church didn't STEAL your religion. It SURPASSED your religion. Christianity saw itself as forming the "New Covenant", as a replacement of the old decayed religion, with a lot of unease toward the "Old Testament". Christianity equaled revolution during the time of its origin and rise. But Christianity didn't STEAL anything Jewish, neither the religion nor "your lives", it simply incorporated the Jewish scriptures in their canon and used it to form the midrashim in the New Testament. You don't even seem to know the basics of religious history.

MJ: Well, as I said… it goes both ways. The Jews have done other peoples a lot of harm, too. Maybe we should all call it day.

Josh: Really? Did we most recently kill six million of you? Let me know, 'cause the history books didn't record it.

Did we prevent you from capturing Yassir Arafat when you were nine miles from Demascus bringing death, mutilation to Jews and Muslims alike?

We're not coming out of your book, you say? Your fictitious, made up Jesus fairy tale, the "Q" Gospel? A joke among jokes. Well, you're right about one thing. "Jesus" wasn't anymore Jewish than the Flying Spagetti Monster, simply because neither existed.

Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not kill.

The Christians time and time again have proven themselves bloodthirsty murderers. These are the people who cut off the hands of Indians and tied them around their necks, Indians and what are now called Pakistanis. These are the people who raped Iraq.

Your theft of our religion, of our lives, is the inaugural racism, murderous racism of the West. Yours is the religion of Mamon. And right now, you are in a lot of people's books.

Wow! M.J. It really is tough, because the books are going to keep on coming and coming and coming.

Josh wrote: Jews could not be less interested in Christian writings.

MJ: Then please explain this to me, since they are "not so interested":

haaretz.com/hasen/spages/985362.html

(add the usual http :// www. )

Josh wrote: There is no "OT".

MJ writes: Correct. That's why I (like you) also put it in quotes. You're also correct on the "OT" that Christians read, on its origin from the Septuagint, the differences from the original text etc.

Josh: The catholics did in fact colonize this text, read it back to signal a foretold revelation. Good News!

MJ: Yes. If you take a non-Jewish story from the Graeco-Roman, hellenized sphere and want to anchor it in ancient Palestine, you need to harmonize it with the regional scriptures. This is called "diegetic transposition", similar to what Joyce did with the Odyssee in "Ulysses". But none of the things in the NT are "foretold" in the OT. That's merely a redactional and adaptational thing, as part of a cultural transformation process of an originally non-Jewish story. It's full of midrashim and vaticini ex eventu.

Josh: The Muslims did the same. It was revealed to them that J.Christ was not the son of God, and to say he was is blasphemy.

MJ: Why not? Who says that the Muslims are wrong on the "Son-of-god"-issue?

Josh: Stay tuned for the continuing massive conversions to Islam

MJ: Oh… I actually hear the opposite.

Josh: Jews could not be less interested in Christian writings.

MJ: But Jewish scholars are. And many of these are now playing on the next level of occupation… after geographical seizures of land and of peoples now the seizure of scripture and its interpretation, e.g. like research on Jesus' Aramaic language etc.

Josh: What Christians need to do is write their own book

MJ: They already did. It's called the Gospel.

Josh: and keep me and my people out of it.

MJ: I'd love to give you what you want, and as a Catholic I couldn't care less about Judaism. But as long as Christians stick to their false belief that "Jesus was a Jew" and that the Lord's vita occured in Palestine, you guys are not coming off the hook. But I hereby sincerely apologize for the misguidedness of my fellow Christians.

Josh: The Christians have done us enough harm. They have done enough harm to the world.

MJ: Well, as I said… it goes both ways. The Jews have done other peoples a lot of harm, too. Maybe we should all call it day.

Josh: We are the people of the book. They are the people of the sword.

MJ: Yes. People of the sword we are. It's in our book. You know, after all: we do have our own book. But this article is not about physical weapons, but about written weapons called the holy scriptures. And in this context I need to repeat myself: Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. are all "written religions", but there are very specific differences: Jews are the people of the SCROLL, while Christians are the people of the BOOK. Get educated, please.

But Jews are now beginning to do to Christian scriptures the things the Christians had done to Jewish scriptures before. It doesn't mean the Jews are claiming the NT for their religion, but they're beginning to re-interpret and re-define Christian writings from a Jewish perspective.
----------------
There is no "OT." There is the Tanakh written primarily in Hebrew, but with some Aramaic. This text translated into Greek and then into English is what most Christians/Catholics read. Of course, there "OTs" differ from one another and from the Tanakh, not merely in terms of the books included, the order of the books, but also the language itself. Some of the mistranslations are risible.

The catholics did in fact colonize this text, read it back to signal a foretold revelation. Good News! The Muslims did the same. It was revealed to them that J.Christ was not the son of God, and to say he was is blasphemy.

Stay tuned for the continuing massive conversions to Islam, and watch your colonizing book become colonized.

Thou shalt not steal. Not another's livelihood, his means of life, nor his culture, nor his heritage, nor his Bible. The Tanakh.

Jews could not be less interested in Christian writings. What Christians need to do is write their own book and keep me and my people out of it.

The Christians have done us enough harm. They have done enough harm to the world. We are the people of the book. They are the people of the sword.

Josh wrote:

Many of our lasting trials develop from the theft, distortion, expropriation and colonization of our Book. From there, it has been a short leap to mutilation of identity, body, and murder. Christians/Catholics: Read and learn: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal.

MJ writes:

Theft, distortion, expropriation, colonization plus mutilation of identity and body as well as murder always went both ways.

Jews: Read and learn your own history.

But you're partially right with one thing: for a very long time, the "theft, distortion, expropriation and colonization" of Jewish scriptures had been a one-way thing. The major impact was of course not the addition of the "Old Testament" to the Christian canon, but the new emphasis put on the OT after the Bible translation and interpretation by Martin Luther. After the reformation, the OT moved from an appendical to a prioritized status at the beginning of the canon.

So Christians: Thou shalt not steal other people's scriptures!

But Jews are now beginning to do to Christian scriptures the things the Christians had done to Jewish scriptures before. It doesn't mean the Jews are claiming the NT for their religion, but they're beginning to re-interpret and re-define Christian writings from a Jewish perspective.

The Jews are, indeed, the people of the Book, as well as the people of many books.

Many of our lasting trials develop from the theft, distortion, expropriation and colonization of our Book. From there, it has been a short leap to mutilation of identity, body, and murder.

Christians/Catholics: Read and learn:

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not steal.

The Jews are, indeed, the people of the Book, as well as the people of many books.

Many of our lasting trials develop from the theft, distortion, expropriation and colonization of our Book. From there, it has been a short leap to mutilation of identity, body, and murder.

Christians/Catholics: Read and learn:

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not covet.
Thou shalt not steal.

The Jews are the "people of the scroll". The *Christians* are the "people of the book", Mr. Steinsaltz.

Seems worth looking up: it sounds kind of familiar. I've at least heard storytellers tell stories from that *kind* of thing.

I think the Rabbi here wins for best thumbnail photograph, though. Nice one. :)

at least You are here. and i have come to You. Jon Mecham and Sally Quinn know me.

Adin Steinsaltz,

would You educate for Quran? neither Egypt nor Iran nor Turkey are able to speak, and all are wounded and confused in this century.

in a newspaper in Turkey, the news is "one of each two persons accept and approve torture in Turkey"

this must be a warning for mobile phones.

the previous President, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, was the Chairman of Court of Code.

and the prime minister was Bulent Ecevit, sanskrit speaking poet graduate of American Robert College, maybe You know from Cyprus.

Adin Steinsaltz

the previous President had thrown the Main Code in front of Prime Minister that had offered Chairman of Court of Code, at the first meeting.

at least, You know the language of Talmud and other Books. there is no book here, other than a Red Booklet that have Red Lines of Policy!

ordu icin de olsa insanlarin kayitlari ile oynamayin, nereden gelirse gelsinler, kimnin cocugu olursa olsunlar, artik ellemyin ve hak hukuk gozetin.

artik dosyami birakin ve beni de serbest birakin ve para gonderin su borclari kapatayim. Ankara Hacettepe MAsonlar ile ve Hukumet ile isinizi siz gorun ve bir daha haber vermeden insanlara birsey yapmayin, bunu da israil'e ya da kimlere izin verdiyseniz onlara soyleyin.

Ahmet Necdet Sezer, hazirlansaniz cok iyi olur.

lanet olsun hepinize, teker teker devrilesiniz insallah.

Guler Sabanci ve Rahmi Kocu teker teker devirecekler ve lanet bitmeyecek ne zaman ki halki borca dusuren halkin uzerinde oynayan para kazananlar birakacak, o zaman lanet bitecek. dinsiz imansiz herifler.

we do not want cheating, illiterate, trade-based, folk-seperating, money-accepting government.

they have no book.

President Bush
Manuel Barroso

i dont want this government, this government shall drop.

if You write a Book with ECHELON or from NEW YORK citizen Russian Poet Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov?

President Bush

i have read about Baby ECHELON Poet Turk "are you my mother", five years ago, "sleep". could you tell me more about it?

Hello Rabbi,

Now you got me perked up on "The Tales of Rabbi Nachman of Braslav". He sounds like a cousin of Mulla Nasruddin in his tales and adventures.

I will have to get one or two from Amazon.

"J"
A member of the group that designated your group as a "People of the Book". And now Books as you prefered to be truer. We were and are just refering to the Holy Text as THE Book. :)

Rabbi Steinhaltz:

Yes, these tales are unique. "The Losing of the King's Daughter" and "The Tale of the Seven Beggars" stay with me although it has been many years since I read them. They even form my dream content sometimes.

I wonder if you have ever read "The Master of the Return" by Tovah Reich. No less than Hugh Nissan called it a masterpiece.

I will get your translation of R. Nachman's tales now, I think, and reread them.

Farnaz