Within Christianity, Judaism, Humanism and other religions and ethical systems, the morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus. There is a general consensus in North America that when the fetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. Most would confine abortions at that stage to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.
Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes." 1
Abortion-related passages in the Hebrew Scriptures & Talmud:
The Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born.
"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." 1 This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on the Jewish belief about abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of the mother, and not a separate entity:
One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is the owner both of the cow and the fetus.
Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion applies also to her fetus.
Abortions needed to save the life of the mother:
A passage from the Mishna quotes a Jewish legal text from the second century CE. It describes the situation in which a woman's life is endangered during childbirth. A D&X procedure (often called Partial Birth Abortion in recent years) might be used under these conditions today. However, this technique was unknown in ancient times. The legal text states that the fetus must be dismembered and removed limb by limb. However, if "the greater part" of the fetus had already been delivered, then the fetus could not be killed. This is based on the belief that the fetus only becomes a person after most of its body emerges from the birth canal. Before personhood has been reached, it may be necessary to "sacrifice a potential life in order to save a fully existent human life, i.e. the pregnant woman in labor." 1 After the forehead emerges from the birth canal, the fetus is regarded as a person. Neither the baby nor the mother can be killed to save the life of the other.
A second consideration is the principle of self-defense. Some Jewish authorities have asserted that if the fetus placed its mother's life at risk, then the mother should be permitted to kill the fetus to save herself, even if the "greater portion [of its body] had already emerged" from the birth canal.
Other abortions:
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases:
One case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except for its mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case. An abortion of the fetus, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
An abortion would be permissible if the woman was suicidal because of her pregnancy.
Jewish authorities differed in a case where a continued pregnancy would leave the mother permanently deaf. She obtained permission for an abortion from the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
Many Jewish authorities permit abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape, if needed in order save her great mental anguish.
Most authorities do not permit abortion in the event that the fetus is genetically defective or will probably pick up a disease from its mother. The rationale is that even though the child will be malformed, disabled, or diseased, it would still be formed in the image of the creator. Rabbi Eliezar Waldenberg is one authority who believes otherwise. He "allows first trimester abortion of a fetus which would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the end of the second trimester of gestation." 3
An abortion is sometimes permitted if the woman suffers great emotional pain about the birth of a child who will experience health problems.
Abortions are not permitted to avoid career inconveniences, or because the woman is unmarried.
In a very unusual case, a woman in New Jersey was pregnant with a hydroencephalic fetus. Its large head prevented a conventional delivery. The physician recommended a Caesarian section. But the woman asked for a D&X procedure on the grounds that the fetus' life was doomed anyway and a C section would weaken her uterus for her next pregnancy. Her rabbinic authorities agreed.
Political aspects of abortion access:
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, doctor and clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance.
All recognize that the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one, and is not to be undertaken without considerable thought.
Showing posts with label Halacha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Halacha. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Articles of Faith Judaism
Judaism can not be credited with the possession of Articles of Faith. Many attempts have indeed been made at systematizing and reducing to a fixed phraseology and sequence the contents of the Jewish religion. But these have always lacked the one essential element: authoritative sanction on the part of a supreme ecclesiastical body. And for this reason they have not been recognized as final or regarded as of universally binding force. Though to a certain extent incorporated in the liturgy and utilized for purposes of instruction, these formulations of the cardinal tenets of Judaism carried no greater weight than that imparted to them by the fame and scholarship of their respective authors. None of them had a character analogous to that given in the Church to its three great formulas (the socalled Apostles' Creed, the Nicene or Constantopolitan, and the Athanasian), or even to the Kalimat AsShahadat of the Mohammedans. The recital of this "Kalimah" is the first of the five pillars of practical religion in Islam, and one converted to Islam must repeat it verbatim; so that among the conditions required of every believer with reference to confession is the duty to repeat it aloud at least once in a lifetime. None of the many summaries from the pens of Jewish philosophers and rabbis has been invested with similar importance and prominence. The reasons for this relative absence of official and obligatory creeds are easily ascertained.
No Need for Creeds in Judaism
The remark of Leibnitz, in his preface to the "Essais de Theodicee," that the nations which filled the earth before the establishment of Christianity had ceremonies of devotion, sacrifices, libations, and a priesthood, but that they had no Articles of Faith and no dogmatic theology, applies with slight modification to the Jews. Originally race-or perhaps it is more correct to say nationality-and religion were coextensive. Birth, not profession, admitted to the religionational fellowship. As long as internal dissension or external attack did not necessitate for purposes of defense the formulation of the peculiar and differentiating doctrines, the thought of paragraphing and fixing the contents of the religious consciousness could not insinuate itself into the mind of even the most faithful. Missionary or proselytizing religions are driven to the definite declaration of their teachings. The admission of the neophyte hinges upon the profession and the acceptance of his part of the belief, and that t here may be no uncertainty about what is essential and what nonessential, it is incumbent on the proper authorities to determine and promulgate the cardinal tenets in a form that will facilitate repetition and memorizing. And the same necessity arises wh en the Church or religious fellowship is torn by internal heresies. Under the necessity of combating heresies of various degrees of perilousness and of stubborn insistence, the Church and Islam, were forced to define and officially limit their respective theological concepts. Both of these provocations to creedbuilding were less intense in Judaism. The proselytizing zeal, though during certain periods more active than at others, was, on the whole, neutralized, partly by inherent disinclination and part ly by force of circumstances. Righteousness, according to Jewish belief, was not conditioned of the acceptance of the Jewish religion. And the righteous among the nations that carried into practise the seven fundamental laws of the covenant with Noah and his descendants were declared to be participants in the felicity of the hereafter. This interpretation of the status of nonJews precluded the development of a missionary attitude. Moreover, the regulations for the reception of proselytes, as developed in course of time, prove the eminently practical, that is, the noncreedal character of Judaism. Compliance with certain rites baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice is the test of the wouldbe convert's faith. He is instructed in the details of the legal practise that manifests the Jew's religiosity, while the profession of faith demanded is limited to the acknowledgement of the unity of God and the rejection of idolatry (Yorei De'ah, Germ, 268, 2). Judah haLevi ("Cuzari," i. 115) puts the whole mat ter very strikingly when he says:
"We are not putting on an equality with us a person entering our religion through confession alone [Arabic original, bikalamati=by word]. We require deeds, including in that term selfrestraint, purity, study of the Law, circumcision, and the performance of other duties demanded by the Torah."
For the preparation of the convert, therefore, no other method of instruction was employed than for the training of one born a Jew. The aim of teaching was to convey a knowledge of the Law, obedience to which manifested the acceptance of the underlying religious principles; namely, the existence of God and the holiness of Israel as the people of his covenant.
The controversy whether Judaism demands belief in dogma or inculcates obedience to practical laws alone, as enlisted many competent scholars. Moses Mendelssohn, in his "Jerusalem," defended the nondogmatic nature of Judaism, while Low, among others, (see his "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 3152, 433 et seq. 1871) took the opposite side. Low made it clear that the Mendelssohnian theory had been carried beyond its legitimate bounds. The meaning of the word for faithful and belief in Hebrew [emunah] had undoubtedly been strained too far to substantiate the Mendelssohnian thesis. Underlying the practise of the Law was assuredly the recognition of certain fundamental and decisive religious principles culminating in the belief in God and revelation, and likewise in the doctrine of retributive divine justice.
Evolution of Judaism
The modern critical view of the development of the Pentateuch within the evolution of Israel's monotheism confirms this theory. The controversy of the Prophets hinges on the adoption by the people of Israel of the religion of YHWH, that excluded from the outset idolatry, or certainly the recognition of any other deity than YHWH as the legitimate Lord of Israel; that, in its progressive evolution, associated YHWH the concepts of holiness, justice, and righteousness; and that which culminated in the teaching of God's spirituality and universality. The historical books of the Bible, as recast in accordance with these latter religious ideas evince the force of a strong and clearly apprehended conviction concerning the providential purpose in the destinies of earth's inhabitants, and more especially in the guidance of Israel.
Discussions and Dogmatism Disfavored
The Psalms and Wisdom books manifest the predominance, of definite religious beliefs. To say that Judaism is a barren legalistic convention, as Mendelssohn avers, is an unmistakable exaggeration. The modicum of truth in his theory is that throughout Biblical Judaism, as in fact throughout all later phases of Jewish religious thinking and practise, this doctrinal element remains always in solution. It is not crystallized into fixed phraseology or rigid dogma. And, moreover, the ethical and practical implications of the religion are never obscured. This is evidenced by the Biblical passages that, in the opinion of many, partake of the nature of Articles of Faith, or are of great value as showing what, in the opinion of their respective authors, constitutes the essence of religion. Among these the most noteworthy are Deut. vi. 4; Isa., xlv. 57; Micah vi. 8; Ps. xv.; Isa. i. 16, 17; xxxiii. 15.
Whatever controversies may have agitated Israel during the centuries of the Prophets and the earlier postexilic period, they were not of a kind to induce the defining of Articles of Faith counteract the influences of heretical teaching. Dogmatic influences manifest themselves only after the Maccabean struggle for independence. But even these differences were not farreaching enough to overcome the inherent aversion to dogmatic fixation of principles; for, with the Jews, acceptance of principles was not so much a matter of theoretical assent as of practical conduct. Though Josephus would have the divisions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees hinge on the formal acceptance or rejection of certain points of doctrine such as Providence, resurrection of the body, which for the Pharisees, was identical with future retribution it is the consensus of opinion among modern scholars that the differences between these two parties were rooted in their respective political programs, and implied in their respectively national and antinational attitudes, rather than in their philosophical or religious dogmas.
If the words of Sirach (iii. 2023) are to be taken as a criterion, the intensely pious of his days did not incline to speculations of what was beyond their powers to comprehend. They were content to perform their, religious duties in simplicity of faith. The Mishnah (Hag. 11. 1) indorsed this view of Sirach, and in some degree, discountenanced theosophy and dogmatism. Among the recorded discussions in the schools of the Rabbis, dogmatic problems commanded only a very inferior degree of attention ('Er. 13b: controversy concerning the, value of human life; Hag. 12a: concerning the order of Creation). Nevertheless, in the earliest Mishnah is found the citation of Abtalion against heresy and unbelief (Ab. i. 11 [12]); and many a Baraita betrays the prevalence of religious differences (Ber. 12b; 'Ab. Zarah 17a). These controversies have left their impress upon the prayerbook and the liturgy. This is shown by the prominence given to the Shema'; to the Messianic predictions in the ShemonehEsreh (the "Eighteen Benedictions"), which emphasized the belief in the Resurrection; and, finally, to the prominence given to the Decalogue though the latter was again omitted in order to counteract the belief that it alone had been revealed (Tamid v. 1; Yer. Ber. 6b; Bab. Ber. 12a). These expressions of belief are held to have originated in the desire to give definite utterance and impressiveness to the corresponding doctrines that were either rejected or attenuated by some of the heretical schools. But while the se portions of the daily liturgy are expressive of the doctrinal contents of the regnant party in the synagogue, they were not cast into the form of catalogued Articles of Faith.
The first to make the attempt to formulate them was Philo of Alexandria. The influence of Greek thought induced among the Jews of Egypt the reflective mood. Discussion was undoubtedly active on the unsettled points of speculative be lief; and such discussion led, as it nearly always does, to a stricter definition of the doctrines. In his work "De Mundi Opificio," lxi., Philo enumerates five articles as embracing the chief tenets of Mosaism:
1. God is and rules;
2. God is one
3. The world was created;
4. Creation is one;
5. God's providence rules Creation.
But among the Tannaim and Amoraim this example of Philo found no followers, though many of their number were drawn into controversies with both Jews and nonJews, and had to fortify their faith against the attacks of contemporaneous philosophy as well as against rising Christianity. Only in a general way the Mishnah Sanh. xi. 1 excludes from the world to come the Epicureans and those who deny belief in resurrection or in the divine origin of the Torah. R. Akiba would also regard as heretical the readers o f Sefarim Hetsonim-certain extraneous writings (Apocrypha or Gospels)-and such persons that would heal through whispered formulas of magic. Abba Saul designated as under suspicion of infidelity those that pronounce the ineffable name of the Deity. By implication, the contrary doctrine and attitude may thus be regarded as having been proclaimed as orthodox. On the other hand, Akiba himself declares that the command to love one's neighbor the fundamental the principle of the Law; while Ben Asa i assigns this distinction to the Biblical verse, "This is the book of the generations of man " (Gen. v. i.; Gen. R. xxiv). The definition of Hillel the Elder in his interview with a wouldbe convert (Shab. 31a), embodies in the golden rule the one fundamental article of faith. A teacher of the third Christian century, R. Simlai, traces the development of Jewish religious principles from Moses with his 613 commands of prohibition and injunction, through David, who, according to this rabbi, enumerates eleven; through Isaiah, with six; Micah, with three; to Habakkuk who simply but impressively sums up all religious faith in the single phrase, "The pious lives in his faith" (Mak., toward end). As the Halakhah enjoins that one should prefer death to an act of idolatry, incest, unchastity, or murder, the inference is plain that the corresponding positive principles were held to be fundamental articles of Judaism.
The Decalogue as a Summary
From Philo down to late medieval and even modern writers, the Decalogue has been held to be in some way a summary of both the articles of the true faith and the duties derived from that faith. According to the Alexandrian philosopher the order of the Ten Words is not accidental. They divide readily into two groups: the first five summarizing man's relations to the Deity; the other five specifying man's duties to his fellows. Ibn Ezra virtually adopts this view. He interprets the contents of the Decalogue, not merely in their legalritual bearing but as expressive of ethicoreligious principles. But this view can be traced to other traditions. In Yer. Ber. 6b the Shema' is declared to be only an epitome of the Decalogue. That in the poetry of the synagogal ritual this thought often dominates is well known. No less a thinker than Saadia Gaon composed a liturgical production of this character (see AZHAROT) and R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mayence enriched the pray erbook with a piyyut in which the six hundred and thirteen commands are rubricated in the order of and in connection with the Decalogue. The theory that the Decalogue was the foundation of Judaism, its article of faith, was advocated Isaac Abravanel (see his Commentary on Ex. xx. 1); and in recent years by Isaac M. Wise of Cincinnati in his "Catechism" and other writings.
The only confession of faith, however, which, though not so denominated, has found universal acceptance, forms a part of the daily liturgy, contained in all Jewish prayerbooks. ln its original form it read somewhat as follows:
"True and established is this word for us forever. True it is that Thou art our God as Thou wast the God of our fathers; our King as [Thou wast] the King of our fathers; our Redeemer and the Redeemer of our fathers; our Creator and the Rock of our salvation; our Deliverer and Savior from eternity is Thy name, and there is no God besides Thee."
This statement dates probably from the days of the Hasmoneans (see Landshuth, in "Hegyon Leb").
Saadia's, Judah haLevi's and Bahya's Creed
In the stricter sense of the term, specifications in connected sequence, and rational analysis of Articles of Faith, did not find favor with the teachers and the faithful before the Arabic period. The polemics with the Karaites on the one hand, and, on the other, the necessity of defending their religion against the attacks of the philosophies current among both Mohammedans and Jews, induced the leading thinkers to define and formulate their beliefs. Saadia's "Emunot weDeot" is in reality one long ex position of the main tenets of the faithful. The plan of the book discloses a systematization of the different religious doctrines that, in the estimation of the author, constitute the sum total of his faith. They are, in the order of their treatment by him, the following:
1. The world is created;
2. God is one and incorporeal;
3. belief in revelation (including the divine origin of tradition;
4. man is called to righteousness and endowed with all necessary qualities of mind and soul to avoid sin;
5. belief in reward and punishment;
6. the soul is created pure; after death it leaves the body;
7. belief in resurrection;
8. Messianic expectation, retribution, and final judgment.
Judah haLevi endeavored, in his "Cuzari," to determine the fundamentals of Judaism on another basis. He rejects all appeal to speculative reason, repudiating the method of the Motekallamin. The miracles and traditions are, in their natural character, both the source and the evidence of the true faith. With them Judaism stands and falls. The book of Bahya ibn Pakuda ("Hobot haLebabot"), while remarkable, as it is, for endeavoring to give religion its true setting as a spiritual force, contributed nothing of note to the exposition of the fundamental articles. It goes without saying that the unity of God, His government of the world, the possibilities of leading a divine life-which were never forfeited by man-are expounded as essentials of Judaism.
Ibn Daud and Hananel ben Hushiel
More interesting on this point is the work of R. Abraham ibn Daud (1120) entitled "Emnah Ramah" (The High Faithful). In the second division of his treatise he discourses on the principles of faith and the Law. These principles are:
The existence of God;
His Unity;
His spirituality;
His other attributes;
His power as manifested in His works;
His providence.
Less well known is the scheme of an African rabbi, Hananel b. Hushiel, about a century earlier, according to whom Judaism's fundamental articles number four:
Belief in God;
belief in prophecy;
belief in a future state;
belief in the advent of the Messiah.
The Thirteen Articles of Maimonides
The most widely spread and popular of all creeds is that of Maimonides, embracing the thirteen articles. Why he chose this particular number has been a subject of much discussion. Some have seen in the number a reference to the thirteen attributes of God. Probably no meaning attaches to the choice of the number. His articles are:
1. The existence of God;
2. His unity;
3. His spirituality;
4. His eternity;
5. God alone the object of worship;
6. Revelation through his prophets;
7. the preeminence of Moses among the Prophets;
8. God's law given on Mount Sinai;
9. the immutability of the Torah as God's Law;
10. God's foreknowledge of men's actions;
11. retribution;
12. the coming of the Messiah;
13. Resurrection.
This creed Maimonides wrote while still a very young man; it forms a part of his Mishnah Commentary, but he never referred to it in his later works (See S/ Adler, "Tenets of Faith and Their Authority in the Talmud," in his "Kobez 'al Yad," p. 92, where Yad haHazakah, Issure Biah, xiv, 2, is referred to as proof that Maimonides in his advanced age regarded as fundamental of the faith only the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry). It did not meet universal acceptance; but, as its phraseology is succinct, it has passed into the prayerbook, and is therefore familiar to almost all Jews of the Orthodox school. The successors of Maimonides, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century-Nahmanides , Abba Mari ben Moses, Simon ben Zemah, Duran, Albo, Isaac Arama, and Joseph Jaabez-reduced his thirteen articles to three:
Belief in
God;
in Creation (or revelation); and in
providence (or retribution).
Others, like Crescas and David ben Samuel Estella, spoke of seven fundamental articles, laying stress on freewill. On the other hand, David ben YomTob ibn Bilia, in his "Yesodot ha Maskil" (Fundamentals of the Thinking Man), adds to the thirteen of Maimonides thirteen of his own-a number which a contemporary of Albo (see "'Ikkarim," iii.) also chose for his fundamentals; while Jedaiah Penini, in the last chapter of his "Behinat haDat," enumerated no less than thirtyfive cardinal principles (see Low, "Judische Dogmen," in his "Gesammelte Werke," i. 156 et seq.; and Schechter, "Dogmas of Judaism," in "Studies of Judaism," pp. 147181).
In the fourteenth century Asher ben Jehiel of Toledo raised his voice against the Maimonidean Articles of Faith, declaring them to be only temporary, and suggested that another be added to recognize that the Exile is a punishment for the sins of Israel . Isaac Abravanel, his "Rosh Amanah," took the same attitude towards Maimonides' creed. While defending Maimonides against Hasdai and Albo, he refused to accept dogmatic articles for Judaism, holding, with all the cabalists, that the 613 commandments of t he Law are all tantamount to Articles of Faith.
In liturgical poetry the Articles of Faith as evolved by philosophical speculation met with metrical presentation. The most noted of such metrical and rimed elaborations are the "Adon 'Olam," by an anonymous writer now used as an introduction to the morning services (by the Sephardim as the conclusion of the musaf or "additional" service), and of comparatively recent date; and the other known as the "Yigdal," according to Luzzatto, by R. Daniel b. Judah Dayyan.
Modern Catechisms
The modern catechisms abound in formulated Articles of Faith. These are generally intended to be recited by the candidates for confirmation, or to be used for the reception of proselytes (See Dr. Einhorn's "'Olat Tamid"). The Central Conference of America n Rabbis, in devising a formula for the admission of proselytes, elaborated a set of Articles of Faith. These modern schemes have not met with general favor their authors being in almost all cases the only ones that have had recourse to them in practise. The points of agreement in these recent productions consist in
the affirmation of the unity of God;
the election of Israel as the priest people;
the Messianic destiny of all humanity.
The declaration of principles by the Pittsburgh Conference (1885) is to be classed, perhaps, with the many attempts to fix in a succinct enumeration the main principles of the modern Jewish religious consciousness.
The Karaites are not behind the Rabbinites in the elaboration of Articles of Faith. The oldest instances of the existence of such articles among them are found in the famous word by Judah ben Elijah Hadassi, "Eshkol haKofer." In the order there given these are the articles of the Karaite:
1. God is the Creator of all created beings;
2. He is premundane and has no peer or associate;
3. the whole universe is created;
4. God called Moses and the other Prophets of the Biblical canon;
5. the Law of Moses alone is true;
6. to know the language of the Bible is a religious duty;
7. the Temple at Jerusalem is the palace of the world's ruler;
8. belief in Resurrection contemporaneous with the advent of the Messiah;
9. final judgment;
10. retribution.
The number ten here is not accidental. It is keeping with the scheme of the Decalogue. Judah Hadassi acknowledges that he had predecessors in this line, and mentions some of the works on which he bases his enumeration. The most succinct cataloguing of the Karaite faith in articles is that by Elijah Bashyatzi (died about 1490). His articles vary but little from those by Hadassi, but they are put with greater philosophical precision (see Jost, "Geschichte des Judenthums," ii. 331).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schlesinger, German translation of 'Ikkarim (especially introduction and annotations), xvixliii. 620 et seq., 640 et seq.; Low, Gesammelte Werke, i. 3152, 133176; Jost, Gesh. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten; Hamburger, Realencyclopadie, s.v. Dogmen; Rappoport, Biography of Hananel; Schechter, The Dogmas of Judaism, in Studies in Judaism, pp 147181; J. Aub. Ueber die GlaubensSymbole der Mosaischen Religion; Frankel's Zeitschrift fur die Religiosen Interessen des Judenthums, 1845, 409, 449; Creizenach, Grundlehren des Israelitischen Glaubens, in Geiger's Wissensch. Zeitschrift fur Jud. Theologie, i. 39 et seq., ii. 6 8, 255
No Need for Creeds in Judaism
The remark of Leibnitz, in his preface to the "Essais de Theodicee," that the nations which filled the earth before the establishment of Christianity had ceremonies of devotion, sacrifices, libations, and a priesthood, but that they had no Articles of Faith and no dogmatic theology, applies with slight modification to the Jews. Originally race-or perhaps it is more correct to say nationality-and religion were coextensive. Birth, not profession, admitted to the religionational fellowship. As long as internal dissension or external attack did not necessitate for purposes of defense the formulation of the peculiar and differentiating doctrines, the thought of paragraphing and fixing the contents of the religious consciousness could not insinuate itself into the mind of even the most faithful. Missionary or proselytizing religions are driven to the definite declaration of their teachings. The admission of the neophyte hinges upon the profession and the acceptance of his part of the belief, and that t here may be no uncertainty about what is essential and what nonessential, it is incumbent on the proper authorities to determine and promulgate the cardinal tenets in a form that will facilitate repetition and memorizing. And the same necessity arises wh en the Church or religious fellowship is torn by internal heresies. Under the necessity of combating heresies of various degrees of perilousness and of stubborn insistence, the Church and Islam, were forced to define and officially limit their respective theological concepts. Both of these provocations to creedbuilding were less intense in Judaism. The proselytizing zeal, though during certain periods more active than at others, was, on the whole, neutralized, partly by inherent disinclination and part ly by force of circumstances. Righteousness, according to Jewish belief, was not conditioned of the acceptance of the Jewish religion. And the righteous among the nations that carried into practise the seven fundamental laws of the covenant with Noah and his descendants were declared to be participants in the felicity of the hereafter. This interpretation of the status of nonJews precluded the development of a missionary attitude. Moreover, the regulations for the reception of proselytes, as developed in course of time, prove the eminently practical, that is, the noncreedal character of Judaism. Compliance with certain rites baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice is the test of the wouldbe convert's faith. He is instructed in the details of the legal practise that manifests the Jew's religiosity, while the profession of faith demanded is limited to the acknowledgement of the unity of God and the rejection of idolatry (Yorei De'ah, Germ, 268, 2). Judah haLevi ("Cuzari," i. 115) puts the whole mat ter very strikingly when he says:
"We are not putting on an equality with us a person entering our religion through confession alone [Arabic original, bikalamati=by word]. We require deeds, including in that term selfrestraint, purity, study of the Law, circumcision, and the performance of other duties demanded by the Torah."
For the preparation of the convert, therefore, no other method of instruction was employed than for the training of one born a Jew. The aim of teaching was to convey a knowledge of the Law, obedience to which manifested the acceptance of the underlying religious principles; namely, the existence of God and the holiness of Israel as the people of his covenant.
The controversy whether Judaism demands belief in dogma or inculcates obedience to practical laws alone, as enlisted many competent scholars. Moses Mendelssohn, in his "Jerusalem," defended the nondogmatic nature of Judaism, while Low, among others, (see his "Gesammelte Schriften," i. 3152, 433 et seq. 1871) took the opposite side. Low made it clear that the Mendelssohnian theory had been carried beyond its legitimate bounds. The meaning of the word for faithful and belief in Hebrew [emunah] had undoubtedly been strained too far to substantiate the Mendelssohnian thesis. Underlying the practise of the Law was assuredly the recognition of certain fundamental and decisive religious principles culminating in the belief in God and revelation, and likewise in the doctrine of retributive divine justice.
Evolution of Judaism
The modern critical view of the development of the Pentateuch within the evolution of Israel's monotheism confirms this theory. The controversy of the Prophets hinges on the adoption by the people of Israel of the religion of YHWH, that excluded from the outset idolatry, or certainly the recognition of any other deity than YHWH as the legitimate Lord of Israel; that, in its progressive evolution, associated YHWH the concepts of holiness, justice, and righteousness; and that which culminated in the teaching of God's spirituality and universality. The historical books of the Bible, as recast in accordance with these latter religious ideas evince the force of a strong and clearly apprehended conviction concerning the providential purpose in the destinies of earth's inhabitants, and more especially in the guidance of Israel.
Discussions and Dogmatism Disfavored
The Psalms and Wisdom books manifest the predominance, of definite religious beliefs. To say that Judaism is a barren legalistic convention, as Mendelssohn avers, is an unmistakable exaggeration. The modicum of truth in his theory is that throughout Biblical Judaism, as in fact throughout all later phases of Jewish religious thinking and practise, this doctrinal element remains always in solution. It is not crystallized into fixed phraseology or rigid dogma. And, moreover, the ethical and practical implications of the religion are never obscured. This is evidenced by the Biblical passages that, in the opinion of many, partake of the nature of Articles of Faith, or are of great value as showing what, in the opinion of their respective authors, constitutes the essence of religion. Among these the most noteworthy are Deut. vi. 4; Isa., xlv. 57; Micah vi. 8; Ps. xv.; Isa. i. 16, 17; xxxiii. 15.
Whatever controversies may have agitated Israel during the centuries of the Prophets and the earlier postexilic period, they were not of a kind to induce the defining of Articles of Faith counteract the influences of heretical teaching. Dogmatic influences manifest themselves only after the Maccabean struggle for independence. But even these differences were not farreaching enough to overcome the inherent aversion to dogmatic fixation of principles; for, with the Jews, acceptance of principles was not so much a matter of theoretical assent as of practical conduct. Though Josephus would have the divisions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees hinge on the formal acceptance or rejection of certain points of doctrine such as Providence, resurrection of the body, which for the Pharisees, was identical with future retribution it is the consensus of opinion among modern scholars that the differences between these two parties were rooted in their respective political programs, and implied in their respectively national and antinational attitudes, rather than in their philosophical or religious dogmas.
If the words of Sirach (iii. 2023) are to be taken as a criterion, the intensely pious of his days did not incline to speculations of what was beyond their powers to comprehend. They were content to perform their, religious duties in simplicity of faith. The Mishnah (Hag. 11. 1) indorsed this view of Sirach, and in some degree, discountenanced theosophy and dogmatism. Among the recorded discussions in the schools of the Rabbis, dogmatic problems commanded only a very inferior degree of attention ('Er. 13b: controversy concerning the, value of human life; Hag. 12a: concerning the order of Creation). Nevertheless, in the earliest Mishnah is found the citation of Abtalion against heresy and unbelief (Ab. i. 11 [12]); and many a Baraita betrays the prevalence of religious differences (Ber. 12b; 'Ab. Zarah 17a). These controversies have left their impress upon the prayerbook and the liturgy. This is shown by the prominence given to the Shema'; to the Messianic predictions in the ShemonehEsreh (the "Eighteen Benedictions"), which emphasized the belief in the Resurrection; and, finally, to the prominence given to the Decalogue though the latter was again omitted in order to counteract the belief that it alone had been revealed (Tamid v. 1; Yer. Ber. 6b; Bab. Ber. 12a). These expressions of belief are held to have originated in the desire to give definite utterance and impressiveness to the corresponding doctrines that were either rejected or attenuated by some of the heretical schools. But while the se portions of the daily liturgy are expressive of the doctrinal contents of the regnant party in the synagogue, they were not cast into the form of catalogued Articles of Faith.
The first to make the attempt to formulate them was Philo of Alexandria. The influence of Greek thought induced among the Jews of Egypt the reflective mood. Discussion was undoubtedly active on the unsettled points of speculative be lief; and such discussion led, as it nearly always does, to a stricter definition of the doctrines. In his work "De Mundi Opificio," lxi., Philo enumerates five articles as embracing the chief tenets of Mosaism:
1. God is and rules;
2. God is one
3. The world was created;
4. Creation is one;
5. God's providence rules Creation.
But among the Tannaim and Amoraim this example of Philo found no followers, though many of their number were drawn into controversies with both Jews and nonJews, and had to fortify their faith against the attacks of contemporaneous philosophy as well as against rising Christianity. Only in a general way the Mishnah Sanh. xi. 1 excludes from the world to come the Epicureans and those who deny belief in resurrection or in the divine origin of the Torah. R. Akiba would also regard as heretical the readers o f Sefarim Hetsonim-certain extraneous writings (Apocrypha or Gospels)-and such persons that would heal through whispered formulas of magic. Abba Saul designated as under suspicion of infidelity those that pronounce the ineffable name of the Deity. By implication, the contrary doctrine and attitude may thus be regarded as having been proclaimed as orthodox. On the other hand, Akiba himself declares that the command to love one's neighbor the fundamental the principle of the Law; while Ben Asa i assigns this distinction to the Biblical verse, "This is the book of the generations of man " (Gen. v. i.; Gen. R. xxiv). The definition of Hillel the Elder in his interview with a wouldbe convert (Shab. 31a), embodies in the golden rule the one fundamental article of faith. A teacher of the third Christian century, R. Simlai, traces the development of Jewish religious principles from Moses with his 613 commands of prohibition and injunction, through David, who, according to this rabbi, enumerates eleven; through Isaiah, with six; Micah, with three; to Habakkuk who simply but impressively sums up all religious faith in the single phrase, "The pious lives in his faith" (Mak., toward end). As the Halakhah enjoins that one should prefer death to an act of idolatry, incest, unchastity, or murder, the inference is plain that the corresponding positive principles were held to be fundamental articles of Judaism.
The Decalogue as a Summary
From Philo down to late medieval and even modern writers, the Decalogue has been held to be in some way a summary of both the articles of the true faith and the duties derived from that faith. According to the Alexandrian philosopher the order of the Ten Words is not accidental. They divide readily into two groups: the first five summarizing man's relations to the Deity; the other five specifying man's duties to his fellows. Ibn Ezra virtually adopts this view. He interprets the contents of the Decalogue, not merely in their legalritual bearing but as expressive of ethicoreligious principles. But this view can be traced to other traditions. In Yer. Ber. 6b the Shema' is declared to be only an epitome of the Decalogue. That in the poetry of the synagogal ritual this thought often dominates is well known. No less a thinker than Saadia Gaon composed a liturgical production of this character (see AZHAROT) and R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mayence enriched the pray erbook with a piyyut in which the six hundred and thirteen commands are rubricated in the order of and in connection with the Decalogue. The theory that the Decalogue was the foundation of Judaism, its article of faith, was advocated Isaac Abravanel (see his Commentary on Ex. xx. 1); and in recent years by Isaac M. Wise of Cincinnati in his "Catechism" and other writings.
The only confession of faith, however, which, though not so denominated, has found universal acceptance, forms a part of the daily liturgy, contained in all Jewish prayerbooks. ln its original form it read somewhat as follows:
"True and established is this word for us forever. True it is that Thou art our God as Thou wast the God of our fathers; our King as [Thou wast] the King of our fathers; our Redeemer and the Redeemer of our fathers; our Creator and the Rock of our salvation; our Deliverer and Savior from eternity is Thy name, and there is no God besides Thee."
This statement dates probably from the days of the Hasmoneans (see Landshuth, in "Hegyon Leb").
Saadia's, Judah haLevi's and Bahya's Creed
In the stricter sense of the term, specifications in connected sequence, and rational analysis of Articles of Faith, did not find favor with the teachers and the faithful before the Arabic period. The polemics with the Karaites on the one hand, and, on the other, the necessity of defending their religion against the attacks of the philosophies current among both Mohammedans and Jews, induced the leading thinkers to define and formulate their beliefs. Saadia's "Emunot weDeot" is in reality one long ex position of the main tenets of the faithful. The plan of the book discloses a systematization of the different religious doctrines that, in the estimation of the author, constitute the sum total of his faith. They are, in the order of their treatment by him, the following:
1. The world is created;
2. God is one and incorporeal;
3. belief in revelation (including the divine origin of tradition;
4. man is called to righteousness and endowed with all necessary qualities of mind and soul to avoid sin;
5. belief in reward and punishment;
6. the soul is created pure; after death it leaves the body;
7. belief in resurrection;
8. Messianic expectation, retribution, and final judgment.
Judah haLevi endeavored, in his "Cuzari," to determine the fundamentals of Judaism on another basis. He rejects all appeal to speculative reason, repudiating the method of the Motekallamin. The miracles and traditions are, in their natural character, both the source and the evidence of the true faith. With them Judaism stands and falls. The book of Bahya ibn Pakuda ("Hobot haLebabot"), while remarkable, as it is, for endeavoring to give religion its true setting as a spiritual force, contributed nothing of note to the exposition of the fundamental articles. It goes without saying that the unity of God, His government of the world, the possibilities of leading a divine life-which were never forfeited by man-are expounded as essentials of Judaism.
Ibn Daud and Hananel ben Hushiel
More interesting on this point is the work of R. Abraham ibn Daud (1120) entitled "Emnah Ramah" (The High Faithful). In the second division of his treatise he discourses on the principles of faith and the Law. These principles are:
The existence of God;
His Unity;
His spirituality;
His other attributes;
His power as manifested in His works;
His providence.
Less well known is the scheme of an African rabbi, Hananel b. Hushiel, about a century earlier, according to whom Judaism's fundamental articles number four:
Belief in God;
belief in prophecy;
belief in a future state;
belief in the advent of the Messiah.
The Thirteen Articles of Maimonides
The most widely spread and popular of all creeds is that of Maimonides, embracing the thirteen articles. Why he chose this particular number has been a subject of much discussion. Some have seen in the number a reference to the thirteen attributes of God. Probably no meaning attaches to the choice of the number. His articles are:
1. The existence of God;
2. His unity;
3. His spirituality;
4. His eternity;
5. God alone the object of worship;
6. Revelation through his prophets;
7. the preeminence of Moses among the Prophets;
8. God's law given on Mount Sinai;
9. the immutability of the Torah as God's Law;
10. God's foreknowledge of men's actions;
11. retribution;
12. the coming of the Messiah;
13. Resurrection.
This creed Maimonides wrote while still a very young man; it forms a part of his Mishnah Commentary, but he never referred to it in his later works (See S/ Adler, "Tenets of Faith and Their Authority in the Talmud," in his "Kobez 'al Yad," p. 92, where Yad haHazakah, Issure Biah, xiv, 2, is referred to as proof that Maimonides in his advanced age regarded as fundamental of the faith only the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry). It did not meet universal acceptance; but, as its phraseology is succinct, it has passed into the prayerbook, and is therefore familiar to almost all Jews of the Orthodox school. The successors of Maimonides, from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century-Nahmanides , Abba Mari ben Moses, Simon ben Zemah, Duran, Albo, Isaac Arama, and Joseph Jaabez-reduced his thirteen articles to three:
Belief in
God;
in Creation (or revelation); and in
providence (or retribution).
Others, like Crescas and David ben Samuel Estella, spoke of seven fundamental articles, laying stress on freewill. On the other hand, David ben YomTob ibn Bilia, in his "Yesodot ha Maskil" (Fundamentals of the Thinking Man), adds to the thirteen of Maimonides thirteen of his own-a number which a contemporary of Albo (see "'Ikkarim," iii.) also chose for his fundamentals; while Jedaiah Penini, in the last chapter of his "Behinat haDat," enumerated no less than thirtyfive cardinal principles (see Low, "Judische Dogmen," in his "Gesammelte Werke," i. 156 et seq.; and Schechter, "Dogmas of Judaism," in "Studies of Judaism," pp. 147181).
In the fourteenth century Asher ben Jehiel of Toledo raised his voice against the Maimonidean Articles of Faith, declaring them to be only temporary, and suggested that another be added to recognize that the Exile is a punishment for the sins of Israel . Isaac Abravanel, his "Rosh Amanah," took the same attitude towards Maimonides' creed. While defending Maimonides against Hasdai and Albo, he refused to accept dogmatic articles for Judaism, holding, with all the cabalists, that the 613 commandments of t he Law are all tantamount to Articles of Faith.
In liturgical poetry the Articles of Faith as evolved by philosophical speculation met with metrical presentation. The most noted of such metrical and rimed elaborations are the "Adon 'Olam," by an anonymous writer now used as an introduction to the morning services (by the Sephardim as the conclusion of the musaf or "additional" service), and of comparatively recent date; and the other known as the "Yigdal," according to Luzzatto, by R. Daniel b. Judah Dayyan.
Modern Catechisms
The modern catechisms abound in formulated Articles of Faith. These are generally intended to be recited by the candidates for confirmation, or to be used for the reception of proselytes (See Dr. Einhorn's "'Olat Tamid"). The Central Conference of America n Rabbis, in devising a formula for the admission of proselytes, elaborated a set of Articles of Faith. These modern schemes have not met with general favor their authors being in almost all cases the only ones that have had recourse to them in practise. The points of agreement in these recent productions consist in
the affirmation of the unity of God;
the election of Israel as the priest people;
the Messianic destiny of all humanity.
The declaration of principles by the Pittsburgh Conference (1885) is to be classed, perhaps, with the many attempts to fix in a succinct enumeration the main principles of the modern Jewish religious consciousness.
The Karaites are not behind the Rabbinites in the elaboration of Articles of Faith. The oldest instances of the existence of such articles among them are found in the famous word by Judah ben Elijah Hadassi, "Eshkol haKofer." In the order there given these are the articles of the Karaite:
1. God is the Creator of all created beings;
2. He is premundane and has no peer or associate;
3. the whole universe is created;
4. God called Moses and the other Prophets of the Biblical canon;
5. the Law of Moses alone is true;
6. to know the language of the Bible is a religious duty;
7. the Temple at Jerusalem is the palace of the world's ruler;
8. belief in Resurrection contemporaneous with the advent of the Messiah;
9. final judgment;
10. retribution.
The number ten here is not accidental. It is keeping with the scheme of the Decalogue. Judah Hadassi acknowledges that he had predecessors in this line, and mentions some of the works on which he bases his enumeration. The most succinct cataloguing of the Karaite faith in articles is that by Elijah Bashyatzi (died about 1490). His articles vary but little from those by Hadassi, but they are put with greater philosophical precision (see Jost, "Geschichte des Judenthums," ii. 331).
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Schlesinger, German translation of 'Ikkarim (especially introduction and annotations), xvixliii. 620 et seq., 640 et seq.; Low, Gesammelte Werke, i. 3152, 133176; Jost, Gesh. des Judenthums und Seiner Sekten; Hamburger, Realencyclopadie, s.v. Dogmen; Rappoport, Biography of Hananel; Schechter, The Dogmas of Judaism, in Studies in Judaism, pp 147181; J. Aub. Ueber die GlaubensSymbole der Mosaischen Religion; Frankel's Zeitschrift fur die Religiosen Interessen des Judenthums, 1845, 409, 449; Creizenach, Grundlehren des Israelitischen Glaubens, in Geiger's Wissensch. Zeitschrift fur Jud. Theologie, i. 39 et seq., ii. 6 8, 255
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Virgin Birth Heresy
The Virgin Birth is a fundamental tenet of most forms of Christianity. Yet it is very odd that none of the earlier Christian books mention it. The book of Mark, probably the first written, makes no mention of it at all. One would think that it would be worth at least one sentence, if not the amount spent on it by the book of Matthew. It is evident that Mark had never heard of the Virgin Birth. The book of John does not mention it either.
The reason that the virgin birth concept was added to Christianity was because the first Christians were very unsuccessful at converting Jews. Most Jews knew they had something better, so they would not leave Judaism for Christianity. Remember: at the beginning it was nothing more than a very small messianic movement within Judaism, and after their "messiah" died, it was rather hard to convert Jews to their movement.
So they began to reach out to the pagans, the non-Jews. But those pagans attracted to Judaism had already joined Judaism, and the new ones would not be very likely to join a tiny fringe group that had lost all real meaning since their false messiah-leader had died. Anyone interested in Judaism would more likely be interested in mainstream Judaism.
So the Christians had to do something different. They had to develop appeal. So, they began to assume beliefs that pagan people found attractive. That was how they came up with the concepts of the trinity, transubstantiation, the need to "save" everyone through the resurrection of a messiah, virgin birth, and all the other wacky ideas of Christianity. All these were lifted straight from other religions, some of which preceded Christianity by 700 years! Pagans just lapped up things like demigods, gods having intercourse with humans, virgins giving birth. Such claims meant something to pagans, and they were already familiar with such beliefs from their own cultures. So leaving a pagan religion to join Christianity was not much of a stretch, especially after Paul declared that the pagans did not need to keep the Commandments of the Torah.
Virgin birth was a popular pagan myth, prevalent in numerous religions of the time. The particular strain that we find in Christianity was probably taken directly from the Greek myth of the divine birth of Perseus from the virgin Danae. It never had any association with Judaism. Furthermore, Attis, a popular Roman and Syrian god around the time Christianity began, was also said to have been born of a virgin. Long before that, Krishna, the Hindu god, dating back to nine centuries before Christianity, was said to be god incarnate born of a virgin, as was Gautama Buddha. So there was rather widespread precedent for Christian beliefs, but none of it came from Judaism.
Your average Jew with any kind of Jewish upbringing is disgusted by these ideas. This was true back then, just as much as it is true today. The virgin birth seems to us rather strange.
A Jew will also ask: "And how do I know she was a virgin?" We don't, of course, so there's really no evidence at all. In fact, no one could ever have known whether or not she was a virgin!
What do I mean by that? In Matthew, Chapter 1, verse 24-25, it says: "Then Joseph awoke and did as the angel of the Lord had instructed him, and married her. He did not have relations with her until after she had given birth to her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."
The verse says that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until after jesus was born. In other words, after jesus was born, they did have relations. Not only that, Matthew later says quite explicitly that jesus had three brothers and a few sisters (Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56). Mark (6:3) lists four brothers and says "all his sisters," which might imply more than two sisters, but in any case implies at least two.
There are those who wish to argue that "brothers and sisters" refers to those that jesus considered is true brothers and sisters -- his followers.
But this answer doesn't work. Let's look at the actual verses involved. First, Matthew 12:46-50.
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
In other words, his biological mother and brothers were waiting outside for him, and he argued that his real mother and brothers were his followers.
So he apparently had real brothers, biological brothers.
Now, it is quite evident that even if a woman could conceive a child and still remain a virgin, the act of giving birth would rupture the hymen anyway. So once jesus was born, Mary would no longer have had a hymen.
Now, if Joseph did not have relations with her until after her hymen was ruptured from jesus' birth, even Joseph could never know whether she had been a virgin when jesus was conceived. By the time Joseph got to her, one way or another she had no hymen, so how could Joseph know whether the hymen was there before jesus was born?
So who in the world could verify that she was a virgin when she conceived jesus? No one, that's who!
Think about it. What sort of proof would it be anyway? I stand up in front of a few people, and I declare: "You see that virgin?" And everyone turns to look at her, and they say, "Well, I see a woman, but how do I know she's a virgin?"
"Never mind about that now," I say. "I'm a prophet, and I tell you she is a virgin. She will give birth, miraculously!"
"What's so miraculous about that?" everyone wants to know. She'll have relations with someone, and she'll get pregnant, and she'll give birth. It happens every day."
"Take my word for it."
No one checks to see if she is a virgin, because that would be in poor taste anyway.
So how is this a proof of anything?
But what is even more amazing is their supposed proof that virgin birth is significant. It all comes from a distorted verse in Isaiah.
Let's examine what Isaiah says there, in plain English.
King Ahaz of Judah was afraid, because the king of Aram and the king of Israel were conspiring to wage war against Judah.
Isaiah prophesied to King Ahaz that within a few years Israel would be taken into exile, and Judah would be left alone. Aram would not bother Judah, and Israel would not be able to.
Isaiah offered King Ahaz a sign that would prove that Isaiah's words were prophecy from G-d. King Ahaz refused, because that would have caused a greater sanctification of G-d's Name. Isaiah got angry, and offered his own sign. He predicted the gender of an unborn child. Isaiah indicated a young woman who was nearby -- some say it was the king's wife, and some say it was Isaiah's wife -- and Isaiah said, "The young woman is pregnant. she will give birth to a son, and his mother will call him Emmanuel. Before he is even old enough to know good from evil, before he is even old enough to enjoy delightful food, the two kings will stop invading your land. And this child will grow up to enjoy good and delightful food, because your land will be in peace."
And it indeed happened that way.
That is what Chapter 7 of Isaiah is about. Now where is there mentioned the Messiah? How does a virgin fit into this?
Even if you can prove that almah means a virgin -- and you can't-- it is STILL not talking about the Messiah. Jesus was born some 700 years later. How would that have answered King Ahaz's problem? None of the words of that chapter fit into any such interpretation.
Let me restate this, to make sure everyone understands.
Chapter 7 of Isaiah tells of a conversation between King Ahaz and Isaiah, sometime around the year 600 B.C.E.
King Ahaz of Judea was worried. The Kings of Aram and Israel were planning a siege and attack against Judea. G-d told the Prophet Isaiah to reassure Ahaz and tell him not to worry, it will not happen. Aram and Israel will not succeed against Judea.
Isaiah offered a sign. He would foretell an event, and when it came true that would prove that he spoke prophetically. Then Ahaz could cease worrying. What sign did he offer? "This young woman here is pregnant. She will give birth to a son. She will call him Emmanuel. Once he is old enough to have intelligence, he will eat rich foods, because there will be peace in the land. This is because even before he attains intelligence, Aram and Israel will be conquered, and their people will be taken away."
This last point is important.
Isaiah showed King Ahaz a sign, to reassure him that during the childhood of the boy Emmanuel the two kings will be rendered harmless. As it says there, in verse 16 of that chapter in Isaiah: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken." The prophecy was fulfilled not long after, when Isaiah's wife gave birth to a son. Isaiah 8:4 therefore says: "Even before the child shall know how to cry 'Father and Mother!' the riches of Damascus and Samaria will be taken away by the king of Assyria."
Isaiah makes it absolutely clear that his prophecy will take place very soon. Not 600 or 700 years later.
So the child being referred to was the son of Isaiah, or the son of the king. It has nothing to do with the Messiah. The entire event: the birth of the child Emmanuel and the exile of the two kings, took place over 600 years before Jesus was born. So the verse is not talking about a virgin, and in any case is not talking about the Messiah, but about a child that was born very shortly thereafter.
But this is considered irrelevant to many Christians. They argue that Isaiah was referring overtly to the problem of the time, but was also alluding to the Messiah.
How do they do this? How can you possibly find in these verses a proof that the Messiah will be born of a virgin?
It's quite simple. Change the "young woman" to "virgin." Change "she is pregnant" to "she will become pregnant." Ignore the reference to "Emanuel." If you don't mention it, perhaps no one else will notice it either.
Don't be concerned that Isaiah makes no mention of the Messiah here. Perhaps the Christian apostles honestly believed that the Messiah is mentioned in this verse, despite the glaring absence of any such reference.
Now, ignore the fact that Isaiah was reassuring Ahaz that in his own time he will have peace. Pretend instead that he was referring to an event 600 years in the future. How that would reassure King Ahaz that he would have peace from Aram and Israel I cannot imagine. Maybe the problem is that I don't have enough "faith" to believe in a lie.
Typically, Christians ignore the context of the verses in Isaiah, and focus -- when forced to -- only on the question of what the word almah means.
Any translation that renders almah as "virgin," is absolutely wrong. That is not the definition of the word. You can argue from today until the middle of next year, but the meaning of the word won't change.
Some people argue that the Septuagint uses the word "parthenos" in Isaiah 7:14. (The Septuagint was a Greek translation created by a large group of Rabbis sometime around 300 B.C.E.) That would mean, if this is true, that even the Jews translated almah as "virgin."
Actually, one cannot bring proof from the Septuagint. The only existing copies of the Septuagint are nothing like the original version. Though the Septuagint was created by Rabbis, they did it against their will, because King Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt forced them to do it. Ptolemy wanted a Greek version for his library. The Septuagint was never used by religious Jews as a source of study. In pre-Christian times, it was not popular at all, and if it was used at all, it was used almost exclusively by non-Jews, and sometimes by assimilated, non-religious, Hellenized Jews.
Non-Jews did not consider it holy, and so they were not careful about preserving it precisely. The Septuagint was therefore not kept in its original form. It was changed many times. Later, the Christians deliberately introduced many changes in the text, in order to bring it in line with their own doctrines.
Some argue that the christians cannot be blamed for misreading it, because the meaning of the Greek word "parthenos" changed. Originally, it meant "young woman," and later the meaning of the word shifted (as happens in all languages over time) and people began to use it to mean "virgin." Even if that's true, that gives a sorry picture of the "wisdom and divine inspiration" of the people (i.e., the christians) who thought that Isaiah was talking about a virgin. It means that they had no idea what the original Hebrew verse was saying. Why, then, should I learn theology from an ignoramus?
The original translators that created the Septuagint were Rabbis. They translated it according to Jewish Tradition. They certainly knew Hebrew, and they knew that almah means "young woman." They knew it does not mean "virgin." It makes no sense to believe that the Rabbis of the Septuagint translated it as "virgin," when no other Rabbi in all of history has ever translated it that way.
But even if we accept that the Septuagint was originally written with the word "parthenos," and that the Rabbis meant to translate it as "virgin" (which makes no sense), how does that explain what the Christians did to the rest of the passage? Even if it does mean virgin, how did the Messiah get into this prophecy? And how did a prophecy that clearly refers to a contemporary event get applied to an event 600 or 700 years later? There is no logic to this so-called "proof."
You might ask: Christians aren't stupid. Anyone can read Isaiah and figure out these things for themselves. Why haven't they rejected this doctrine on their own?
There are a few reasons.
First of all, you would be amazed at how many missionaries studied my exposition on this matter, and have responded by saying things like: "I am satisfied that Isaiah Chapter 7 is talking about the Messiah." Many missionaries say they have "blind faith" (and for some reason they expect to somehow use that to convince me). In reality, they are blinded by their faith. Their faith does not allow them to accept interpretations that do not match what they have been taught, so they simply edit the contradictions out of their minds. They see what they want to see.
But not all Christians are blinded by faith. Many blind themselves willingly. Take Catholics, for example. Catholics are not taught to study the Bible, and so many of them know only what they have heard the priests teach them in church.
It is certainly significant that for over seventeen hundred years, the Catholic Church forbade Catholics to read the bible! When two people translated the bible into a language so that everyone could understand it, the Catholic Church burned them at the stake! Can you believe this? They did not want people to read their own holy book!!
They knew that if the Catholics read the bible properly, they might start asking questions that the Catholic priests wouldn't be able to answer. People might start to see the contradictions and problems that the Christian bible is full of.
Protestants have another problem. Protestants often rely on the King James' version of the bible, which not only is so terribly distorted and mistranslated, it is also next to impossible for the modern reader to understand.
Years ago, I used to attend weekly meetings at a book store, where people would get together and have some rather fascinating conversations.
One time I got into a discussion with a customer that walked in at the time. She was Protestant (Methodist, I think), and the subject of the supposed virgin birth was brought up. I challenged her to read chapter 7 of Isaiah and find any references to the Messiah.
She asked the owner of the book store for a bible, and she began to read it. After about two or three verses, she gave up. She complained that she could not understand what the Bible was talking about. That was the end of the conversation, as far as she was concerned. There was no way to even discuss the matter, because she was incapable of investigating on her own.
She would not ask for any other bible, because she insisted that the King James Bible is the only divinely inspired translation, and that it is infallibly correct.
Such people fulfill, I suppose, what the Christian bible says, "If your eyes offends you, pluck it out." If you don't like what you see, don't change the wrong thing. Blind yourself! And then you won't see it.
Missionaries with whom I have had any discussion, especially about this, often simply ignore everything I have written. They can't focus on it. (And in addition, missionaries are trained to trick you and snare you with confusing twists in conversation. Missionaries tend not to even answer the questions you ask them.)
One stance taken by some Christian missionaries is that we Jews are all wrong, and that almah actually does mean virgin. We Jews just don't know any Hebrew! After all, where's the proof from the Tanach that almah does not mean "virgin?" This is ridiculous, of course. We Jews have been using Hebrew for the past three thousand, there hundred years, which is more than one thousand years longer than Christianity has even existed. But I will prove they are wrong anyway.
A Christian woman who tried to convert me over the Internet (I'll call her Beulah) once quoted to me six places in Tanach where the term almah is used, and claimed that all of them "could mean virgin." There is no explicit indication anywhere, she said, as to whether it refers to a virgin or not.
There are two problems with that.
In the first place, the fact that they could mean virgin does not prove that they do mean virgin.
Secondly, she omitted the seventh occurrence of the word, the one that is the actual proof.
The proof is in Proverbs 31:18-20.
There are three things that leave no trace after they have passed, and a fourth that one can never know afterwards. The way an eagle has flown in the sky, the way a serpent has crawled on a rock, the way a ship has sailed in deep water, and the way a man has been with a young woman (almah). That's how an adulterous woman acts: she "eats," wipes her mouth, and says "I have committed no sin."
What this means is that when an adulterous woman sins, she relies on the fact that no one can tell. We cannot tell that an eagle has just flown across the sky, or that a serpent has just crawled across this rock, or that a ship sailed by here ten minutes ago, because they leave no permanent sign. So too, when a man sins with a young woman, no one can tell, because there is no mark left behind.
Now, if almah means a virgin, this passage makes no sense. After a virgin has such an experience, there is definitely a difference, there is definitely a sign: she has lost her virginity. That is in no way comparable to the other three examples. Yet the verse says that the fourth leaves no sign afterwards, and you can never tell it happened!
It follows therefore, that almah here cannot mean a virgin. It means a young woman. The word almah means, simply, a young woman. It does not mean "virgin."
In other places in Tanach a "young woman" might be a virgin, and might not. Here in Proverbs, she is definitely not a virgin.
Beulah, the Christian missionary from the Internet whom I mentioned above, objected that the verse simply says "the way of a man with a young woman." She argued that the way of a man is to talk with young women.
I told her that if she thought all a man does with young women is talk, she's been spending too much time inside her church. She should get out of the convent, and go meet some men, and see if all they want to do is talk.
Secondly, if it simply means talk, why need it say a man and woman? It could refer to any two people. Why particularly a man and a young woman? In what way is talking "the way of a man with a young woman?"
She had no answer, so she ignored my question and changed the subject. I wasn't very surprised at that.
Quite a number of missionaries have attempted to prove to me by other means that almah really means virgin. They show me the other places in Tanach that the word almah is used, and say things like "Surely he wanted a virgin, not merely a young woman." As if that proves the definition of the word, somehow.
Invariably, and I mean this absolutely, they never mention the verse in Proverbs. That one they studiously ignore.
For example, they point to Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, who said that he will choose as a bride for Isaac the first almah who offers water to both him and his animals. "Surely he wanted a virgin," they tell me.
What was Eliezer saying? Was he intending to check each woman and see if she was a virgin? "I will accept only a virgin. So if I see a woman who is not a virgin, I will reject her." That's ridiculous. How would he know which young woman was a virgin and which was not? Would he even have asked her such a question? He was not in a position to make any such judgment.
This is not proof that almah means virgin.
Another argument often thrown my way is the interesting, "All young women then were virgins."
Except that it is completely untrue. Most young women were married, and consequently were no longer virgins.
And here is yet another thing to consider: Isaiah was bringing a sign, that is, a proof that he was a prophet. He prophesied that the woman would give birth to a boy, which was something only prophet could have known for sure. If he meant to use the word "virgin" as his proof, why did he use a word whose meaning is ambiguous? He could simply have said "besulah," which means "virgin."
He didn't use the word "besulah," because that was not the sign he was giving. He said 'young woman," because he meant the young woman (who was, by the way, already pregnant).
In short, the word almah means a young woman. That's all. The woman might be a virgin, she might not be. She might be married, she might be single, she might be divorced, she might even have been debauched. It simply means "young woman," whatever her status. But the word almah does not imply virginity or lack thereof. Virginity is irrelevant to the meaning of this word.
As such, it does not constitute PROOF that someone born of a virgin is the Messiah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
