Having witnessed the hand of G-d acting on their behalf, and having just been miraculously led out out of their enslavement in Egypt, the Jewish people find themselves trapped between the bank of a forbidding sea and an approaching Egyptian military force. Terrified, they call out to G-d; who promptly instructs them (through Moshe) to shut up and move on.
So they do; and the sea splits; and the rest is history.
The Ibn Ezra, in his commentary to Exodus, wonders why a people possessing 600,000 fighting (age) men shrank in fear of the Egyptian force?
He answers that since the generation who left Egypt had from youth been accustomed to see the Egyptians as masters, their self perceived lowliness made them unable even to imagine waging war against Egypt. And for this reason, the Ibn Ezra adds, G-d in his mysterious ways arranged for that generation of men to die in the wilderness, putting the conquest of Cana’an in the hands of its children, a brazenly confident generation.
Seven years ago, almost immediately after passing through the entrance of the holocaust museum in Washington D.C. I gave a member of my group my cell number and walked out.
Why?
Well, as you pass through the corridor leading to what I assume is the main body of the museum and you are engulfed from all around by either the engraved names of Jewish children or by their shoes or by their pictures, you get to hear-in brilliant surround sound, no less-voices of little children whom the mind imagines to be headed to their slaugter. I”m in the middle of this ‘experience’ when I think to myself, “if G-d wanted me to experience the terror, I would have.”
So I left; I want all the Jews to leave.
I did not bring the above ‘Ibn Ezra’ to cast aspersions on the generation of the Shoah. Indeed they, growing up in the Jewish powerhouse that was Europe, were far more strong in every way than we will ever be. Rather I am concerned for some of our generation of Jews, many of whom are being wronged by their elders.
To perpetuate, in memory, our slaughter at the hands of animals is to compete with carefully nurtured national memories of Divine protection (Purim) and Divine assistance to Jewish bravery (Chanuka). Emphasizing that our fate is in the hands of G-d and that we are his people, our true national memory engenders brazen courage. While this new competing memory engenders nothing but fear and timidness.
My kids will never go to a holocaust museum. Nor will any education program under my directorship ever offer holocaust education.
30 comments:
Like many Biblical stories, you do realize there is not a shred of historic evidence that there ever was enslavement in Egypt of the Jews. Yes, there may have been slavery of assorted peoples, including some Jews, but no public records in Egypt nor surrounding countries prove this.
Like all effective myths, this one (which culminates in the well-worn and borrowed tale of Moses performing supernatural acts) is effective precisely because it is unreal, and begs a higher meaning, not because it is real.
The Holocaust was real, but the enslavement unlikely.
I love it. The entire Jewish people have been celebrating the exodus yearly since it happened, mentioning it twice daily when reciting the Shema.
And there is no historical evidence.
You are a modern educated Wood chopper.
And Americans celebrate a large rodent leaving sweets for their children, and magical beings who leave coins for their childrens' shed teeth. So?
It's called ritual, and often people justify theirs by invoking myth- see China, Greece, Babylonia, Rome, Scandinavia, American Indian tribes.
But, again, not a shred of historical evidence.
Listen wood chopper, I"ll let you think about the distinction between a traditional account that is said to have happened to the tradition bearers, personally, and your tooth fairies that are not ipso facto falsified by their very falsity.
Don't worry though, you don't have to; those who agree with you will continue to agree with you, so you can continue pretending to be a serious thinker.
Argument proceeds by proof, not name calling. One need not be a serious thinker to realize that, merely an adult.
Here is your chance. Proof:
Sans any, don't bother replying, save for a 'You are correct.'
Heh.
Save a letter. Translation:
No.
Okay, Wood Chopper. I"ll help you keep score, but don't expect me to do the thinking for ya.
I proffered the powerful evidence in my first comment.
You disregarded the evidence in your second. Not by addressing it directly, mind you, but by asserting , without 'proof', its identity with other folk beliefs.
I pointed out the critical distinction in my third comment. (But I don't expect you to get it, not because you are stupid, but rather because you will not give it serious thought, because you are not a serious thinker.)
Now you are asking for evidence, while doing an end-zone dance.
I thought that was amusing. Hence my 'Heh'.
You are not being treated with respect, because your initial engagement was rhetorically disrespectful.(And I'm not going to argue out this subjective with you.)
You can challenge anything I say, but you will not be treated with more rhetorical respect than you yourself accord.
'I proffered the powerful evidence in my first comment.'
You provided an anecdote. Ask Bigfoot and UFO believers how much that counts for. Zip.
There was no evidence to regard or not then.
Your third comment was 'Heh.'
That does not square with critical distinction, and calls into question your ability to count to 3.
I don't care of your respect, only that you critically think, which you have thus far refused to do, resorting to namecalling and evasion.
So, despite the length of your last, and 4th comment, what you actually said was:
....sound of the Arctic katabatic blowing....
'You are not being treated with respect, because your initial engagement was rhetorically disrespectful.'
Here is what was stated:
'Like many Biblical stories, you do realize there is not a shred of historic evidence that there ever was enslavement in Egypt of the Jews. Yes, there may have been slavery of assorted peoples, including some Jews, but no public records in Egypt nor surrounding countries prove this.
Like all effective myths, this one (which culminates in the well-worn and borrowed tale of Moses performing supernatural acts) is effective precisely because it is unreal, and begs a higher meaning, not because it is real.
The Holocaust was real, but the enslavement unlikely.'
Simple disagreement is not disrespect. That is PC speak.
Boy, I got him mad didn't I.
:)
Dan,
On second reading, I think you are correct.
Naftali, Your blog system signs me in w diff names at diff times. I am the same person- now it is signing me in as Dan, again, rather than Cosmo.
And I was not angry, although it's interesting to note your differing reaction when you thought I was a different person. Same tone, same assertion, but you changed.
Think about that. That's likely to have a far more profound impact on you than myths and miracles.
Actually Dan,
If the wood chopper had written the previous comment, I would have responded the same.
Except you did not. With the same tone and arguments, you referred to me, as Dan, with a familiar smiley face and admission of correctness- as if trying to recruit an ally, whereas as Cosmo you personalized an impersonal comment and went on the warpath, a classic blog tactic.
This is a great textbook example of Internet Psychology 101.
The "I made him mad" and smiley was
addressed to the blogo-sphere, not to Dan.
There was no reason at all to suspect in you 'ally'.
In fact there are no allies whatever among the modern educated wood-choppers.
Which is why you are confident again dismissing the evidence I made in my first comment, calling it names and comparing it to other folk traditions from which I had distinguished it in my second.
Because you are convinced that everyone will agree with you. You are wrong, only wood choppers will.
How about this for internet psycology: You are a priori convinced that the Exodus and Sinai did not happen.
Records of eye witness accounts is the sin qua non of historical evidence. The validity of such records have to be assessed on a case by case basis. All the history books that were ever written were written on that basis.
Only modern educated wood choppers
began demanding that history be 'reconstructed' archaeologically
before attaining the vaunted 'shred of evidence' status. Ironically real scientists-not wood choppers-
understand that we do not know enough about what we should be finding in the archaeological record of any given event in ancient history to assert
that a given absence of evidence is evidence (let alone proof) of absence.
They only apply such a standard when they have a-priori decided that the event could not have happened.
So basically, all thinking man-not wood choppers-has to go on is the national history of the concerened people.
And since it is inconceivable how at some point in history, a people could convince itself that it had undergone 210 years of slavery, been extricated miraculously from it, witnessed the giving of the Torah on Sinai following it, and had been celebrating it yearly and daily ever since it, if the nation
had never heard of it before. It's something they should have known about, No?
Therein lies the distinction between this historical account and other folk tales. If the tooth fairy were true, I would not neccesarily have known it before you told me. If Mohhamed really talked to G-d, I would not have to
known that either. So even befor you start convincing I cannot know that it is a lie.
And, yes, some isolated people
certainely believe strange things have happened to them. But that a whole nation should accept it, and that they should be sufficiently convinced to hand it down to their children and celebrate it yearly
and daily for thousands of years claiming that they had been doing so since the event itself is unheard of.
What you are doing is rejecting a well supported observation because your thoeries say it is impossible.
Which is OK for the modern educated
wood choppers, but for serious thinkers it smacks for what is; a rejection of the scientific method, which holds that theory is slave to observation and not vice versa.
The previous comment is from Naftali
'Which is why you are confident again dismissing the evidence I made in my first comment, calling it names and comparing it to other folk traditions from which I had distinguished it in my second.'
Yr 1st comment: 'The entire Jewish people have been celebrating the exodus yearly since it happened, mentioning it twice daily when reciting the Shema.'
That is not evidence, that is a statement of tradition. There is no contemporaneous historical evidence Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt.
Provide some. You do not because you cannot. And namecalling only increases your desperation.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/a+priori
Main Entry:
a pri·o·ri Listen to the pronunciation of a priori Listen to the pronunciation of a priori
Pronunciation:
\ˌä-prē-ˈȯr-ē, ˌa-; ˌā-(ˌ)prī-ˈȯr-ˌī, -ˌprē-ˈȯr-ē\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin, literally, from the former
Date:
1652
1 a: deductive b: relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions — compare a posteriori c: presupposed by experience2 a: being without examination or analysis : presumptive b: formed or conceived beforehand
When you type 'You are a priori convinced that the Exodus and Sinai did not happen.' you show you do not understand the definition of the term you cite. I have examined the evidence. There is none. My claim is based on a posteriori evaluation.
'Records of eye witness accounts is the sin qua non of historical evidence. The validity of such records have to be assessed on a case by case basis. All the history books that were ever written were written on that basis.'
And again, there are no contemporaneous accounts of such- not in Egyptian records, nor records of nearby states, from which there are many records of miniscule business dealings.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it certainly is not evidence of anything else, either. Your point? Or was there one?
'They only apply such a standard when they have a-priori decided that the event could not have happened.'
See the above for your misuse of definitions.
'And since it is inconceivable how at some point in history, a people could convince itself that it had undergone 210 years of slavery, been extricated miraculously from it, witnessed the giving of the Torah on Sinai following it, and had been celebrating it yearly and daily ever since it, if the nation
had never heard of it before. It's something they should have known about, No?'
It certainly is conceivable- ever heard of the founding myths of Britain- King Arthur? Ever heard of Ygdrasil- the tree of life in Norse mythos? Ever heard of Washington and the cherry tree? Peoples all over the world convince themselve sof untruths all the time, with or without knowing the verity of the claims. This is called legendry or mythos. It's a commonality amongst human beings. We fabricate tales to give ourselves a sense of cultural cohesion. Is this the best explanation you can come up with?
Again, any real historic evidence? None so far.
'Therein lies the distinction between this historical account and other folk tales. If the tooth fairy were true, I would not neccesarily have known it before you told me. If Mohhamed really talked to G-d, I would not have to
known that either. So even befor you start convincing I cannot know that it is a lie.'
I guess the answer is no to my previous query, since this is technically, incoherent babbling.
'What you are doing is rejecting a well supported observation because your thoeries say it is impossible.'
I have no theory, only the factual accounts that archaeologists have independently found lacking. You are the one pulling theories ex nihilo, which is against scientific method since science demands repetition and testability.
'which holds that theory is slave to observation and not vice versa.'
Which squares perfectly with the utter lack of archaeological and historical record of the enslavement. There is none, and no amount of babbling can change that.
Again, produce any scientist of repute that has ever discovered any record of the enslavement. You cannot.
What you have done is the exact inverse of Holocaust deniers, who look at mounds of evidence, joyfully saved by the Nazis, and deny it. You have absolute zero in evidence for the enslavement, yet claim it. Both positions do not square with reality, and are technically psychotic.
Not good company to keep, eh?
I realize that I'm intruding here on a discussion between two people well versed in Jewish history. As a non-Jew, though, I am more interested, and a bit shocked, at Naftali's principal suggestion: that Holocaust education be de-emphasized.
Twenty years ago I was working as a cameraman on a TV show in what was then a popular format, a debate between two College teams. I can't remember what the topic was, but one debater raised the Holocaust to illustrate humanity's capacity for horror. Her opponent responded scornfully with a rebuttal amounting to: "You're talking about ancient history! That could never happen again."
Heh. Roughly 100,000 years into our existence as a species, this young genius was looking back at an event that had happened within the living memory of thousands, and suggesting that we had somehow made a moral quantum leap. I was appalled then, and remain appalled to this day, at that naivety.
I understand that the sanctification of victimhood is not a good thing. But surely that lesson, or SOME lesson, has to be kept alive - not for the sake of the dead, or for anyone's political advantage, but as a bitter learning for us all? No?
Bal:
I claim no expertise in Jewish history. But one need not be an expert to know these facts about the enslavement, or its lack. One need not be an expert to understand the basics of gravity.
I agree that there has been a fetishization of the Holocaust, which has led to a suffering arms race, with other groups vying to knock off th ejews as most suffering group: blacks, Indians, Armenians, the Gulags, etc.
I find it laughable that some claim the Holocaust is something new. Ask the victims of the Khans, Attila, the Roman, etc. The real headscratcher is why more genocides don't occur.
I agree that the Holocaust should be a part of history that's taught, along with the Middle Passage, manifest Destiny, the Stalinist terrors, and many other atrocities- Nanking, etc., but one needs to de-emotionalize the issues. Only time can do that. In 2108 folk will have a much clearer and saner approach to suffering- Jewish or Gentile.
The contemporaneous evidence is our record of our national history.
You don't trust our record of our history, not our problem.
There is every reason in the world to accept the tradition, as it is impossible to conceive how it could have evolved as it has without being true.
Your examples are not similar.
They suffice only to keep this thread looking in your favor in the eyes of the other wood choppers who will read it.
Every single event you mentioned would not of necessity had to be known to the recipient of the tale
had it been true. I am glad you are now trying though.
If the Washington cherry tree story had purportedly happened in front of the entire American people and had been celebrated by them as such for thousands of years in different places and amongst different cultures, it would be foolish not to believe it.
a priori: cannot have happened therefore it did not happen. That's what I thought you held.
Perhaps I gave you to much credit; it seems you are merely unable to tell a reliable tradition from a fairy tale.
Which is understandable for a wood-chopper.
'The contemporaneous evidence is our record of our national history.'
So there is no national history? Ok.
'There is every reason in the world to accept the tradition, as it is impossible to conceive how it could have evolved as it has without being true.'
Are you channeling Bishop Ussher now?
'If the Washington cherry tree story had purportedly happened in front of the entire American people and had been celebrated by them as such for thousands of years in different places and amongst different cultures, it would be foolish not to believe it.'
Which only proves my point. Since there was no witnesses to the enslavement, as the evidence shows, it is the equivalent of the Washington myth. Thanks for showing the kinship.
'a priori: cannot have happened therefore it did not happen. That's what I thought you held.'
There are free dictionaries online. Consult one.
'Perhaps I gave you to much credit; it seems you are merely unable to tell a reliable tradition from a fairy tale.'
Show me a reliable tradition and we'll see. All you've given is a fairy tale.
Say hi to Tinkerbell.
Dan,
If your grandparents were foriegn born and had died before you were born, and your mother and father had told their names and place of birth would you admit that as evidence to the fact?
I don't bring this up to suggest that the tradition of the Exodus is as strong as the above tradition-indeed the exodus tradition is much stronger, for your parents were not around when their parents were born, and being only two people they could have been conspiring to lie to you-it's just to illustrate to other readers--i have given up on you--that modern wood choppers have not though very deeply into what goes into verifying the accuracy of past events. In fact wood choppers do not think deeply at all, they smugly repeat conventional wisdoms without ever having had an original thought in their brains.
According to this wood-chopper, if the Jews had written about the exodus and died off, the writing
would have constituted evidence but since they did not die, but rather handed the history down to their children it is admissible.
"it is [In]admissible."
(Correction)
Cosmoetica/Dan
One of the reasons the ancient Hebrews/Israelites stood out from other ancient peoples was the high degree of literacy…in fact, that degree of literacy has not been seen to be reproduced among any other ancient group of peoples. I say this to speak to Naftali’s point. If there was disagreement among the Hebrews of the events of the Exodus, I think we would have seen some evidence or semblance of proof of disagreement of it by now.
So it could be considered reasonable for Cosmoetica/Dan to ask where is the physical evidence of proof of the exodus or even an extended captivity of the Hebrews in Egypt which Naftali and I speak?
Well, I am tempted to write the proof is da proof is da proof, and when you have the proof in da hand, you have da proof but I don’t think either of you would get this very Canadian joke.
Anyhoo, Cosmoetica/Dan, just because there has been little physical evidence of it to date does not mean physical evidence will not one day come to light. In just this last year alone, a tiny cuneiform tablet written by Nebo-Sarsekim, who according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar’s Chief Officer and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC has came to light. More recently, a family seal from a servant family who served in the First Temple has been found. It is believed Miriam’s well has been found as well as possibly the palace of King David. It has been thought that a number of Joseph’s seals have been discovered in Egypt. My point being due to the nature of the Muslim conquest (the systematic destruction of all cultural relics of the vanquished) and the heightened state of hatred for all of Judah, it is very difficult to carry out any kind of archaeological activity relating to Judah outside of Israel in the Middle East. In fact, it’s almost downright impossible to do so at this time.
So, until evidence comes to light disproving or proving the Exodus happened in the way in which Naftali and I believed happened - in a physical form you would accept as evidence; we will have to agree to just disagree.
That being said, Naftali, I think you might be on to something. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think you are right. And perhaps the danger in building holocaust museums separate and apart from a religious message or connation is that the museums become more like mausoleums for the dead in a kind ‘ode to the dead’ kind of way…which also strikes me as a form of idolatry – a secular idolatry to be sure, but a idolatry nonetheless. Perhaps, the only lesson a Jew should take from the holocaust is ‘Never Again’ in a Rabbi Meir Kahane way as opposed to a UN “Never Again” way.
Balbulican, of course, you are always welcome to intrude -
'If your grandparents were foriegn born and had died before you were born, and your mother and father had told their names and place of birth would you admit that as evidence to the fact?'
Haha. Actually, that's exactly the case, and it turns out, my grandparents adopted their supposed town's name as their surname when they came thru Ellis Island. The problem was that they got the name wrong. So, no, I wd not admit that as evidence because Human Beings are terrible recorders of fact, when it comes to their memories alone. Ask any prosecutor.
need proof? How many accused rapists have been released in the last decade, and were convicted by the rape victim's ID alone?
In factm time wears away at tradition and truth, for have you ever played the old Telephone game,. where info changes thru retelling.
Again, you are wholly missing the point that there is ZERO evidence of enslavement. Just admit it.
'In fact wood choppers do not think deeply at all, they smugly repeat conventional wisdoms without ever having had an original thought in their brains.'
So, I can call you Paul Bunyan, then?
Kate: 'Anyhoo, Cosmoetica/Dan, just because there has been little physical evidence of it to date does not mean physical evidence will not one day come to light.'
Well, there has been ZERO evidence of it. Just as there has been zero evidence of the Loch Ness monster. Note my first comment. I stated: 'The Holocaust was real, but the enslavement unlikely.'
I never stated that it was not possible. But the burden of proof is on the claimant, be it for the existence of Jesus, Nessi, UFOs, etc. Show me the corpse of a Lake Monster previously undiscovered and the claim is made. Show a single contemporaneous proof of Egyptian enslavement, and the same goes.
But, as of now, there is none. Nada. And, the proof for any of the supernatural aspects of the Exodus are even less likely.
'So, until evidence comes to light disproving or proving the Exodus happened in the way in which Naftali and I believed happened - in a physical form you would accept as evidence; we will have to agree to just disagree.'
No evidence is required to disprove a thing that has not been proved. My advice, get some picks and shovels, and prove the experts wrong.
Naftali,
I am with Cosmoetica. Exodus is not a historic event as we have no historic evidence.
Six hundred thousand people couldn't have spent all these years in the desert.
It is a legend... Something may have been in the basis of that legend, but we have no way of confirming it one way or another. We don't even know when it could have happened - in historic terms.
-------------
Regarding the Holocaust... I take your point. It is a painfull memory.
We have to ask why Jews let it happen and in most cases did little to avoid gas chambers. People were going to die anyway, so why not die fighting like in Warsaw?
Religion is part of the answer. Some people believed that nothing can or should be done about god's will. A disproportionately high number of religious Jews died in the Holocaust.
That is one reason why the Holocaust has to be remembered. It's a lesson which we have learned from as a nation. It is a very sad and very personal event in history for most Jews even of our generation.
Yet for our children it will stand as a positive memory which gave birth to a new type of Jew, the one that refuses to die without fighting. Check out Israel.
The west in general has also learned a lesson and as such it is not a bad thing to remember Holocaust. It is the lession that some in the Muslim world are still to learn.
@Kateland
"One of the reasons the ancient Hebrews/Israelites stood out from other ancient peoples was the high degree of literacy…in fact, that degree of literacy has not been seen to be reproduced among any other ancient group of peoples."
When exactly are we talking about and what's your reference?
That's debatable considering that Hebrews took their alphabet from Phoenicans - a more sophisticated culture around the times of David/Solomon/Jezebel.
Suspect your point works for Egyptians as hieroglyphs would have been difficult to master for the masses, but Greeks would have been fairly literate once they learned the alphabet...
Shlemazl, I am talking about a cross the board literacy - as in a wide diverse socio-economical group of people who have the ability to read and write. This pretty much makes the post-exodus Hebrews stand out from other peoples, like say, the Hittites or even the Greeks.
Yes, I am aware of Greek literacy, but it would have only concerned one (or two classes )of polis – depending on which group of Greeks we are taking about. Even most of Alexander’s Macedonians could not read and write - though Alexander did. The Ancient Romans were quite astonished by the literacy level of your average “Jew’ considering the common Roman view of a Jew was another form of vermin - and yes, I drawing on the works of H.J. Leon, M. Williams, Ely Levine, and I don’t know how many others.
Hmmm... Possible, but again I have doubts that it would work for Phoenicians.
Post a Comment