Freethought & Rationalism Archive

LoungeHead · 05-25-2008, 08:13 PM

I recently spent a night in a motel, and for amusement I flicked through the Gideon bible that many motels are supplied with.

I stopped at one section and read about the nation of Israel being God's children and what not. And I was immediately disturbed by the word "nation" in the text. I thought it was strange that the word nation was used because I doubted it accurately reflected ancient Hebrew text, because nationalism, or at least modern concepts of nation, did not develop until the Renaissance era 16th-17th century when bureaucracy became stronger from printing and better state adminstration over various ethnic minorities through dominance of the administrative leaderships language. It made me wonder, what did nation mean in the Hebrew context?

Does it refer to a tribe?

Or does it refer to assorted collection of slaves that escaped from egypt who redefined themselves as Israelite through shared common cultural history? Much like how "Afro-American" denotes a common socio-cultural history, rather than specific ethnic history of areas in Africa where Afro-American slaves came from.

Or does "nation" in the Old Testament refer to something else entirely?

Any ideas?

*NB: Pre-Renaissance concepts of nation referred to realms, kingdoms or empires made of several minor kingdoms, territories and/or ethnic groups. Often kingdoms and especially empires were ruled by a dominant minor kingdom e.g. Rome ruled over a territorial and administrative Roman Empire consisting of numerous cultures. And the Kingdom of Ile-de-France ruled over surrounding principalities that often had different languages, such as Occitan and Gascon language which were used in what has become modern Southern France.

Huon · 05-26-2008, 07:09 AM

I found this :

New American Standard Bible
Ezekiel 37, 21-28

Quote:

21. "Say to them, `Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land;
22. and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms.
23. "They will no longer defile themselves with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. And they will be My people, and I will be their God.
24. "My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them.
25. "They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever.
26. "I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever.
27. "My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
28. "And the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.""'

One nation = one king, one state, one religion (here).
Of course, this is the opinion of the writer(s) of Ezekiel. Note that in line 22, two nations are equated to two kingdoms.

Toto · 05-26-2008, 01:32 PM

The whole idea of "nation" or "race" had different meanings in the ancient world, in part because the modern nation state requires a certain level of technology. You might as well think of the concept as some sort of group identity that is more like tribalism or a shared culture than any of our modern ideas.

I don't know the Hebrew term, but the Koine Greek would be ethnos or genos, and there is some current discussion on the proper translation.

This review of Denise Kimber Buell, Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) notes:

Quote:

Identity, in particular, ethnic or racial identity, in the ancient Mediterranean world is experiencing something of an upsurge in modern scholarly interest.1 Inquiry into ancient constructions of self and other has become a persistent element in the study of early Christianity, garnering no little diligence across the disciplines of history, religion and classics. Buell's Why This New Race contributes to modern discussions of early Christian identity by closely attending to the ways in which Christian authors of the first through third centuries mapped themselves onto the ethnic, racial and religious terrain of Greco-Roman discourses of identity. There has been a consistent tendency among modern readers, however, to define Christianity as a religious movement that sought to transcend racial ties and kinship attachments; there was to be, after all, "no Jew or Greek" among the followers of Jesus. For this reason, the rise and maturation of Christianity, so we had thought, was intimately linked to its dismissal of its ethnic Jewish roots. When the author of the Epistle to Diognetus framed his interlocutor's question, "Why this new race?" it was supposed by modern readers that any good Christian in antiquity would have been quick to respond that the interlocutor had gotten it all wrong, that Christianity was a universal religion shorn of all local, racially-limited entanglements. Following von Harnack, modern readers supposed that when Christians used the term genos for themselves it was to be taken as a voluntary "class" of religious adherents and not as a "race" or kin group.

Refusing to sap the terms genos and ethnos of their racial weight, Buell's primary project is to dismantle this pervasive modern sentiment that early Christian identity was inherently a "not-race." Instead, early Christians defined themselves as ethno-racially distinct from their antagonists -- whether non-Christians or rival claimants to the appellation "Christian" -- by engaging in "ethnic reasoning" (1-34). Rather than assuming a concise criterion (such as claims to "blood" lineage and kin relations) for ethnicity/race, Buell offers an approach that seeks to analyze the movement of articulations of ethnicity between the poles of fixity and fluidity. While identity boundaries based upon birth seem immovably fixed by biological givenness, they may also be redrawn by discursive or ritual means to incorporate or exclude others (7-10). Furthermore, religious elements, more often characterized as "voluntary," were integral to ancient as well as modern conceptions of race and ethnicity; in fact, religion has often been a "site of production of 'race'" (21). One must refrain, therefore, from disentangling race and religion in ancient literary works through the application of anachronistic categories and typologies (such as "nature religions" vs. "ethical religions," 23; or "practice" vs. "belief," 59-62). By attending to the ethnic reasoning of early Christian texts, Buell seeks to overcome the limitations and myopia of previous scholarship.

jules? · 05-26-2008, 04:29 PM

Nationalism is ancient. The ancient Egyptians considered the rest of the world to be hell, the occupants barbaric [from the Greek word for foreigner meaning bearded] and only the blessed land of the Nile heaven on earth. hell was other people and one wonders how much of this attitude a neighbouring little tribe in the hills of the Levant took on Egyptian values along with circumcision, bull sacrifice, temple building, as well as a king who was the son of god.

Toto · 05-26-2008, 04:44 PM

Barbarian comes from the Greek word for those who did not speak Greek - because their speech sounded like bar-bar or babbling. The ancient Greeks did not have a nation - they had a more or less common language and culture, and warring city states that were only politically united by Philip of Macedon for a brief period.

And I'm not sure about the rest of your post.

LoungeHead · 05-26-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

I found this :

New American Standard Bible
Ezekiel 37, 21-28

Quote:

21. "Say to them, `Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land;
22. and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms.

One nation = one king, one state, one religion (here).
Of course, this is the opinion of the writer(s) of Ezekiel. Note that in line 22, two nations are equated to two kingdoms.

Thanks Huon,

Strange how Ezekiel talks about taking "Israelites" from other nations, yet in the next line refers to there being two nations. Could it be kingdom/nation refers to the division between Israelites in Israel (kingdom) and Israelites elsewhere (a type of non-kingdom)?

Thanks Toto,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You might as well think of the concept as some sort of group identity that is more like tribalism or a shared culture than any of our modern ideas.

Yup, I agree.

However, the mentality behind Israelite group identity still needs to be explained i.e how Israelites identified themselves as part of a wider group of Israel. I presume language, culture, mutual religious practices, and loose kinship links play a major role.

I say loose kinship link, because I doubt a dispersed people would have a strong written or adminstrative record that could easily distinquish blood lines, especially where spousal or kin death has occured. I may be wrong.

Buell's analysis of early Christian identity is interesting as a form of universal solidarity in the ancient world. I would like to know what Buell says about the "old race" in the ancient world.

jules?,

Quote:

Nationalism is ancient.

Group exclusion, which is a key component of nationalism is ancient, but concept of nationalism or the concept of nation is modern (especially as they are Western European terms for types of state). I find it strange a supposed ancient text would use words such as nation. Of course the loss in translation would explain it, but that doesn't help us understand the Israelite mentality towards self and group identity.

Huon · 05-27-2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoungeHead

Strange how Ezekiel talks about taking "Israelites" from other nations, yet in the next line refers to there being two nations. Could it be kingdom/nation refers to the division between Israelites in Israel (kingdom) and Israelites elsewhere (a type of non-kingdom)?

I am by no means a specialist, but I suppose that this paragraph refers to the division between the two kingdoms of Israel and Juda. There is a mention of David. I looked on wiki and I found this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Monarchy

This wiki page mentions with insistance the Books of Samuel, as an important source.

Quote:

Despite the nature of Israel and Judah at this time being traditionally been called a United Monarchy, the biblical text consistently refer to three distinct groups:

- Israelites is consistently used to refer to Saul's forces. After the time of Saul it also used to refer to the supporters of the rebellions against David's reign, in contrast to his supporters.

- Judahites consistently refers to David's supporters during the rebellions against his rule, in contrast to the rebels.

- Hebrews is consistently used to designate a group that are separate and distinct to the Israelites and Judahites, and who sometimes take the side of the Philistines against those of Israel and Judah. It is weakly associated with Jonathan initially, and then more strongly with David's band of outlaws.

A number of scholars have therefore suggested that though the appearance of the biblical account is of a united monarchy with a number of rebellions, even the biblical account actually describes two distinct kingdoms - Israel and Judah - rather than a united entity. According to this view, the Bible portrays Judah led, or anthropomorphised, by David entering into a politically motivated alliance with a band of outlaws led, or anthropomorphised, by Jonathan, and sometimes with the Philistines, in order to rebel against Israel, led by Saul.

If this opinion is more than a simple opinion, we are far from a nation-state, as modelled during the XIXth century (CE !).

jules? · 05-27-2008, 04:06 AM

Why does anyone have a problem with ancient Jewish nationalism? It had to start somewhere and the Bible goes to great lengths to identify the Jews as god's chosen. The rest of the world was gentile. The god created the Jewish nation and eventually the Jewish nation would go out and conquer the world. And for sure there was in fighting. Perhaps the xenophobic, insular and self important nature of the Jews directly grew out of humiliation and the fact that the Jewish nation was jammed inbetween real superpowers constantly invading them. As to when, well the 6th century and the writing of the political bible seems to be more likely than earlier when it was local tribes trying to carve a niche of a homeland.

I am aware that this argument has fuelled other nationalist movements who then went on to persecute the Jewish people.

Toto, barbarian? different etymological dictionaries i suppose, and i think you are probably more right than me although I have it on expert opinion that there is no expert opinion. mind you babble and bearded still sound naff root meanings. The Berber in north Africa use the name supposedly adopted from the Greek. As for the xenophobic/nationalistic Egyptians I need to dig out some links. It is fascinating stuff and some interesting texts.

Roger Pearse · 05-27-2008, 04:16 AM

I suspect nearly everything in this thread is anachronistic. Toto is right about the linguistic origin of "barbarian".

Huon · 05-27-2008, 06:41 AM

Berbers : singular Amazigh, plural Imazighen, in their own language. Same situation with the Germans, Allemands, Tedeschi, Deutsche... or the Hungarians, Magyars.

05-25-2008, 08:13 PM	#1
LoungeHead Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Aotearoa Posts: 3,483	Nation/nationalism originate in Middle-east? I recently spent a night in a motel, and for amusement I flicked through the Gideon bible that many motels are supplied with. I stopped at one section and read about the nation of Israel being God's children and what not. And I was immediately disturbed by the word "nation" in the text. I thought it was strange that the word nation was used because I doubted it accurately reflected ancient Hebrew text, because nationalism, or at least modern concepts of nation, did not develop until the Renaissance era 16th-17th century when bureaucracy became stronger from printing and better state adminstration over various ethnic minorities through dominance of the administrative leaderships language. It made me wonder, what did nation mean in the Hebrew context? Does it refer to a tribe? Or does it refer to assorted collection of slaves that escaped from egypt who redefined themselves as Israelite through shared common cultural history? Much like how "Afro-American" denotes a common socio-cultural history, rather than specific ethnic history of areas in Africa where Afro-American slaves came from. Or does "nation" in the Old Testament refer to something else entirely? Any ideas? *NB: Pre-Renaissance concepts of nation referred to realms, kingdoms or empires made of several minor kingdoms, territories and/or ethnic groups. Often kingdoms and especially empires were ruled by a dominant minor kingdom e.g. Rome ruled over a territorial and administrative Roman Empire consisting of numerous cultures. And the Kingdom of Ile-de-France ruled over surrounding principalities that often had different languages, such as Occitan and Gascon language which were used in what has become modern Southern France.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-26-2008, 04:29 PM	#4
jules? Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: mind the time rift, cardiff, wales Posts: 645	Nationalism is ancient. The ancient Egyptians considered the rest of the world to be hell, the occupants barbaric [from the Greek word for foreigner meaning bearded] and only the blessed land of the Nile heaven on earth. hell was other people and one wonders how much of this attitude a neighbouring little tribe in the hills of the Levant took on Egyptian values along with circumcision, bull sacrifice, temple building, as well as a king who was the son of god.

05-26-2008, 04:44 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Barbarian comes from the Greek word for those who did not speak Greek - because their speech sounded like bar-bar or babbling. The ancient Greeks did not have a nation - they had a more or less common language and culture, and warring city states that were only politically united by Philip of Macedon for a brief period. And I'm not sure about the rest of your post.

05-27-2008, 04:06 AM	#8
jules? Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: mind the time rift, cardiff, wales Posts: 645	Why does anyone have a problem with ancient Jewish nationalism? It had to start somewhere and the Bible goes to great lengths to identify the Jews as god's chosen. The rest of the world was gentile. The god created the Jewish nation and eventually the Jewish nation would go out and conquer the world. And for sure there was in fighting. Perhaps the xenophobic, insular and self important nature of the Jews directly grew out of humiliation and the fact that the Jewish nation was jammed inbetween real superpowers constantly invading them. As to when, well the 6th century and the writing of the political bible seems to be more likely than earlier when it was local tribes trying to carve a niche of a homeland. I am aware that this argument has fuelled other nationalist movements who then went on to persecute the Jewish people. Toto, barbarian? different etymological dictionaries i suppose, and i think you are probably more right than me although I have it on expert opinion that there is no expert opinion. mind you babble and bearded still sound naff root meanings. The Berber in north Africa use the name supposedly adopted from the Greek. As for the xenophobic/nationalistic Egyptians I need to dig out some links. It is fascinating stuff and some interesting texts.

05-27-2008, 04:16 AM	#9
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	I suspect nearly everything in this thread is anachronistic. Toto is right about the linguistic origin of "barbarian".

05-27-2008, 06:41 AM	#10
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Berbers : singular Amazigh, plural Imazighen, in their own language. Same situation with the Germans, Allemands, Tedeschi, Deutsche... or the Hungarians, Magyars.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.