HaRaAYaH

Because I make it a point not to argue with fools and little children.

andrewcriddle

This argument does seem to be selective, eg emphasizing the 10 Commandments at the expense of the wider OT teachings about law and morality.

If we study the Covenant Code in Exodus 21-23, which may be a very early expansion of the 10 Commandments, we find that Exodus 22:21 and 23:9 condemn oppressing a stranger, and give the interesting reason that the Israelites have known what it was like to be strangers when in Egypt.

Andrew Criddle

Gamera

That's the irony here. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus is answering a lawyer's question about "who is my neighbor?" The idea is that the lawyer wants to limit the admonition to "Love your neighbor" to an identifiable class, and to exclude anybody else. The parable results in the opposite conclusion: your neighbor is everybody who cares about (something the lawyer is forced to admit, probably under his breadth)

Thus, as is typical, Jesus takes a literal injunction, and spiritualizes it, so it it essentially means "love everybody, because by loving everybody, everybody is your neighbor."

And indeed, this conforms with his more universal command: love your enemy -- which is the complete and absolute overturning of in-group morality, and must have struck the ancient world as absolutely insane.

Gamera

I agree that Judaism seems to be the first ethical system in antiquity that explicitly moved toward expanded moral consideration to outsiders. The general rule in the Greek, Roman and Germanic world was that moral restrains don't apply to outsiders, who were subject to every type of indignity if one was so inclined to inflict it, most obviously enslavement. In a wonderful leap forward, Judaism transcended that limitation.

But of course, expanding this moral consideration to outright enemies was adevelopment of Christianity, and constitutes a quantum leap.

XKV8R

which is why no one cared about xnty, other than to kill them off. but it apparently grew in popularity. poor old constantine wanted to embrace xnty, but how can one rule the world on a platform of pacifism? answer: have a vision of a chi-rho and transform (and ruin) xnty into a religion of in-crowd love, conquest, and condemnation of anyone not 'us'. then conquer the world.

so by what version of christianity do we live today?

sigh.

ChandraRama

good samaritan story as referenced in Wikipedia..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable...Good_Samaritan

The Jewish Encyclopedia suggests that the parable was changed:[citation needed]

One of these parables deserves special mention here, as it has obviously been changed, for dogmatic reasons, so as to have an anti-Jewish application. There is little doubt that J. Halevy is right ("R. E. J." iv. 249-255) in suggesting that in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke x. 17-37) the original contrast was between the priest, the Levite, and the ordinary Israelite—representing the three great classes into which Jews then and now were and are divided. The point of the parable is against the sacerdotal class, whose members indeed brought about the death of Jesus. Later, "Israelite" or "Jew" was changed into "Samaritan," which introduces an element of inconsistency, since no Samaritan would have been found on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem (ib. 30).

HaRaAYaH

The story you are quoting is in the NEW Testament!!! It has nor bearing on the story in the Leviticus...... Do you know anything about the Bible?

ChandraRama

when did I say it has got anything to do with Leviticus. It is in reference to Gamera's note.

ChandraRama

I could be equally obnoxius like you.
First you try to understand the original thread and what it means. Rather than defending your orthodox law and the greatness of Jewish law, try to understand the evolutionary perspective that Hartung tries to bring to the subject.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew, Chandrarama, haraayah, et al.,

I found four statements that seem to imply commands for being nice to people who are not in-group members.

Note the statement in 22:20, "“He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed." The following statement "21 “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" appears to directly contradict the command to kill those who worship other gods.

We see a solution to this contradiction when we examine the word "stranger" and notice that it is translated as sojourner in Young's Literal Translation:

'And a sojourner thou dost not oppress, nor crush him, for sojourners ye have been in the land of Egypt."

In fact, the word in Greek is προσηλυτον.

The definition is:
noun - accusative singular masculine proselutos pros-ay'-loo-tos: an arriver from a foreign region, i.e. (specially), an acceder (convert) to Judaism (proselyte) -- proselyte.

The word is perhaps better translated as convert in this context. So, in fact, the original commandment in Exodus 22:20-21 is to kill someone who does not worship your God, but to not oppress someone who converts to your group.

This totally supports the idea that Hebraic codes of behavior were aimed strictly at in-group behavior.

However, we do have to take into consideration that in all four passages, the status of the Hebrews in Egypt is the key element. It is really people with the same status as the Hebrews had in Egypt who are being granted protection. Therefore, we have to ask for the status of the Hebrews in Egypt. For this we go to Genesis 47:

Quote:

1 Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said, “My father and my brothers and their flocks and their herds and all that they have, have come out of the land of Canaan; and behold, they are in the land of Goshen.” 2 He took five men from among his brothers and presented them to Pharaoh. 3 Then Pharaoh said to his brothers, “What is your occupation?” So they said to Pharaoh, “Your servants are shepherds, both we and our fathers.” 4 They said to Pharaoh, “We have come to sojourn in the land, for there is no pasture for your servants’ flocks, for the famine is severe in the land of Canaan. Now, therefore, please let your servants live in the land of Goshen.” 5 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Your father and your brothers have come to you. 6 “The land of Egypt is at your disposal; settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land, let them live in the land of Goshen; and if you know any capable men among them, then put them in charge of my livestock.” 7 Then Joseph brought his father Jacob and presented him to Pharaoh; and Jacob blessed Pharaoh. 8 Pharaoh said to Jacob, “How many years have you lived?” 9 So Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty; few and unpleasant have been the years of my life, nor have they attained the years that my fathers lived during the days of their sojourning.” 10 And Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from his presence. 11 So Joseph settled his father and his brothers and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had ordered. 12 Joseph provided his father and his brothers and all his father’s household with food, according to their little ones.

It is clear that Jacob has gone from Canaan to Goshen to avoid starvation. Goshen is considered part of the land of Egypt. Joseph refers to himself and his family as servants of the pharaoh. The Pharaoh says, "if you know any capable men among them, then put them in charge of my livestock.” It is clear that Joseph is making a business arrangement with the pharaoh. He is basically committing his family to being serfs for the Pharoah. They will be the Pharaoh's slaves/servants and take care of the land of Goshen for the Pharaoh in exchange for the right to live in the land.

If this is accurate, then the original meaning of the four statements was that Hebrews should not oppress their servants/slaves/serfs because they were once servants/slaves/serfs in the land of Egypt.

Why was the concept of protecting servants/slaves/serfs changed into the concept of protecting travelers or sojourners. We know that it was the Greeks who gained a reputation for protecting travelers and sojourners, as any traveler or sojourner could be a god in disguise. We may take it that the Hebrews did not wish to remember that they were servants/slaves/serfs and did not wish to be restricted in their means of handling their own servants/slaves/serfs. Therefore, as their culture mixed with Greek culture, they changed the meaning of the commandment. So instead of following the commandment to treat their servants/slaves/serfs well, they adopted the Greek custom of treating travelers well. This left them free to abuse their servants/slaves/serfs in any way they saw fit. It also negated the original commandment to kill strangers, or at least softened it.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay