Did Jews or other Semites jump-start ancient Greek civilization?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

That is why they wrote the NT in greek. But they were still Semites, right? It was pointed out that the Greek alphabet was based on Phoenician (= Canaanite, Semitic) and much of their culture and religion was too. Maybe Greek should be considered a Semitic language? Probably not, but do we have enough data from 1200 BC to 800 BC to know this reasonably sure?

it doesn't matter, the hebrews before that used a block script based on aramaic. it doesn't matter if the greeks borrowed from the phoenicians, everyone borrows from everyone else.
the only groups that based their culture on other cultures were people that had none to speak of and absorbed another culture.
oh and yes we do have a lot of info from 1200 bc to 800, the israelites were a small group in a country being fought over by egypt at the time.
from what historians and archaeologists gather, greeks adopted phoenician script and added vowels. greece already existed but the bronze age cultural collapse forced them to reacquire it.
using a script doesn't make your language "semitic", if that was true, english wouldn't be indo-european, it would be semitic.
please go look up what those terms mean.

I would be happy to entertain that thought, if you have someting to support it.
sane with your claims.
this is a matter of contact with other cultures and you are reducing it down to "it looks like it to me!"
if we are talking about before the romans and the greeks then sumer, edom, midian, egypt, babylon, and many other canannite groups had more effect on israel than the other way around.
israel spent more time absorbing other cultures than they spread ideas, this shouldn't be a big duh moment if you look at the history of the country.
it's a cross road of three continents the most contested piece of land on the planet, its no wonder it was suchga big deal.

Originally posted by LexiconV

Very briefly.... well kinda.
The jesus figure arrived long after the Jews were divided into three sects, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. Jesus (which was not his real name but a Latin version monikered by the Roman Catholic Church long after his death)... is recorded to have frequently rebuked and denounced both the Sadducees and Pharisees... whilst not mentioning the Essenes.... the testimony of both Philo and Josephus appears to respect the mode of life pursued by the Essenes, as these authors were fully acquainted with it.

there was also the zealots and of course jesus's followers
he would have been called by his hebrew name, or at least the name in aramaic.

Your jesus figure didn't create christianity nor control the direction his followers took. It evolved.... the christian 'cult' started after his death as a small group of people who were still practicing jews. This 'cult'... followed an alternative version of judaism to the mainstream.
From Jerusalem the jewish/christians eventually found their way to Rome... lost their Semite names and now had Roman names. At the end of the 1st century this christian sect began to be recognized as a separate religion from Judaism.

well yes and no, paul gives a good picture of how christianity developed. acts and his own writings give a picture of two factions, one that argued for keeping it heavily jewish in ritual and one that said the rituals were more of a burden than was needed.
paul was for stripping away the need to follow the law, peter was the leader of the faction supporting mosaic law, guess who won?
also what the heck do you mean they "lost their semite names"? paul is a translation of his hebrew name not a latin name.

In Rome Paul's influence on Christian thinking was promoted above the other apostolic versions, as 'Paulism'... which seems to focus more on the miracles than the other apostles.
Roman christians had established a theology based on christ rather than on the Mosaic Law. They refused to acknowledge the Roman Emperor's supremacy or that he was a god, as he was a pagan ... hence the christian persecutions by Romans and Jews. And for Peter the first bishop for the roman christians... it was 'off with his head' and buried under the first christian church in Rome.

uh no. christians denied the divinity of augustus and julius, and were attacked as atheists. you do realize that paul was a convert right? a lot of what he wrote about was already believed by 50 ad, he didn't make up a lot of it himself.
where in the world did you get the idea that roman christians came up with anything? that stuff was fought over before there was a church in rome.

Roman Paganism gave way, as christianity absorbed pagan rituals and their key dates with an appealing doctrine. So we have a sect/cult made up of judaism/christian paulism/paganism which became acknowledged as the christian religion.

uh no we don't, what we had was a syncratic religion, made up of judaism, with the laws stripped away and replaced by the blood sacrifice of the supposed son of god and the messiah, co-oping a bunch of pagan stuff.

Eventually Roman catholicism dominated the roman empire as the state religion and the title of 'Pontifex Maximus' usually reserved for the Roman Emperor, who was considered as a god,

no, the emperor represented the gods on earth, he was not a god, he was a mortal man, he would have to die first.

The Bible that you are aware of is a collection of selected works which was decided in Turkey by The First Council of Nicaea around 300-400 years after jesus's death, on the command of the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Why did Christianity dominate over the Jewish ones... because it was the state religion of the Holy Roman Empire... The Holy Roman Catholic Church which still has its Pontifex Maximus/Pontif/Pope.

edit on 17-7-2013 by LexiconV because: spelling

please stop reading anti-christian lies, the council of nicaea was not about canon, it was about clarifying hierarchy in the church and arianism verses the trinity.
constintine called for a council because he became a christian and wanted people to stop killing each other over whether god was three persons of one substance or one being, christians were slaughtering each other over the issue.
canon wasn't settled until the reformation and the RCC didn't settle it until the council of trent because of the reformation.
the reason christianity won was because christianity was a really easy way to escape punishment from your old gods, and people were really willing to kill you for not being a member.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

You clearly view things, how should I say, the 'other way around' than I do. Humans are lazy, we like to be fed, serviced and be happy. That's why we love TV. Why we swallow any useless nonsense. And why we follow the hypocrites until it is time for the slaughter. (financial or otherwise)

But we have become a tiny little bit better, the people thousands of years ago were even more like what I described, just like people in many 'less developed' countries today. Enough food for today means its time to drink. Alcohol is happiness.

I begin to doubt that you are human if you claim that PRIMITIVE people 2500 years ago or more (way before the crusades) would embark on intellectual pursuits provoked by TINY SPECKS OF LIGHT somewhere on the firmament, to spend their scarce resources to draw maps, and to invent stories - without any basis in truth - about Under-sea Gods and Winged-horses, to meticulously recount them, and eventually record them. So sophisticated that their imagery is still being used in today's sciences and philosophy.

We humans like to be happy, as long as we're not being ordered by a power hungry hypocrite into fighting wars.

Bold AND underlined parts are my own emphasis


A. since you KNOW what we humans are like and, more importantly, were thousands of years ago, WHY oh why do you go on posting questions and not definite answers??

B. You asked 3 times, if I am not mistaken, why base your calendar on stars (actually you asked why bother with stars at all). Prove your nickname please. Stars are the best way to know at which exact part of a season you are during a year. The sun rises every day, in our planet, and so it does not make for a very good tool to know which exact day of the year it is. You can know, by observing the weather, during which season you are each day, give or take, but can you be sure it is the right time to plant this crop or that?? Constellations appear along with the sunrise point at given times (example, Libra appears at the point of sunrise between September 22-23 up until October 22-23, then Scorpio takes its place and so on). I believe you need to KNOW each constellation to identify it in the night sky to know what "month" it is - but I am not aware of what people were like thousands of years ago so I can be mistaken.

C. If humans were as you describe then WHY move out of Africa in the first place? It could feed our limited population and if overpopulation threatened our "happiness" we could always protect it by producing less offspring - kind of safeguarding our "happiness".

D. Last but not least, you seem to overemphasize the influence on a TOOL of a culture, like alphabet, to the actual content of said culture. Let me ask you then is there ANY reference of philosophical ideas similar to Plato or Aristotle originating by "Jewish" philosophers BEFORE 410BC? (I used quote marks because I am not sure how you define the term Jewish, let us follow your term, whatever that might be) If so, then yes, you can claim a Jewish influence on a vital part of Greek culture. Otherwise it is like claiming that the Parthenon was NOT an Athenian accomplishment because it was built using marble from Paros!

Originally posted by Maegnas

 

A. since you KNOW what we humans are like and, more importantly, were thousands of years ago, WHY oh why do you go on posting questions and not definite answers??

B. You asked 3 times, if I am not mistaken, why base your calendar on stars (actually you asked why bother with stars at all). Prove your nickname please. Stars are the best way to know at which exact part of a season you are during a year. The sun rises every day, in our planet, and so it does not make for a very good tool to know which exact day of the year it is. You can know, by observing the weather, during which season you are each day, give or take, but can you be sure it is the right time to plant this crop or that?? Constellations appear along with the sunrise point at given times (example, Libra appears at the point of sunrise between September 22-23 up until October 22-23, then Scorpio takes its place and so on). I believe you need to KNOW each constellation to identify it in the night sky to know what "month" it is - but I am not aware of what people were like thousands of years ago so I can be mistaken.

C. If humans were as you describe then WHY move out of Africa in the first place? It could feed our limited population and if overpopulation threatened our "happiness" we could always protect it by producing less offspring - kind of safeguarding our "happiness".

D. Last but not least, you seem to overemphasize the influence on a TOOL of a culture, like alphabet, to the actual content of said culture. Let me ask you then is there ANY reference of philosophical ideas similar to Plato or Aristotle originating by "Jewish" philosophers BEFORE 410BC?

D. I appreciate your approach towards the definition of important terms such as "Jewish". I agree that it varies depending on who and when they are mentioned. History books tells us that the Greek alphabet was taken over from "Phoenicians" who were "Semites". Some say that Phoenician is the same as "Canaanite".

I also agree that the alphabet is only one example, but it represents more than a mere "TOOL". It is a fundamental concept. It is a monumental advancement in how to record data. Such fundamental change occurs in a culture, not because people decide 'we should improve the way to write', but because it is either somehow vital to their survival (which I have seen no evidence for), or else because it is imposed.

Another example is culturally significant numbers. The fourth book of the Bible is called "Numbers". Jacob ("Israel") founded 12 tribes. Later, Jesus had 12 original apostles. The Greeks had 12 Titans and 12 Olympians. Why was the sky divided into 12 constellations, not 8 or 16? Such similarities are claimed by the orthodoxy as being coincidence. IMO, they are not.

C. Your suggestion that "happiness" can be controlled/safeguarded by individually imposed population control sounds eugenicist. The Out-of-Africa theory is too far off-topic for me to discuss here. Maybe you can provide a link?

B. You attempt to make Astrology appear as something beneficial, secular, practical. It is not, there is a big difference between astronomy and astrology. The main purpose for it is Horoscopes, foretelling the future, and other esoteric knowledge, not the date of the year. It's at the level of Alchemy.

Heliacal rising can be correlated to any solar 365.2425 day calendar. But why have a "heliacal" calendar when the sun is much easier to observe - it rises every day. It is bigger, brighter, and it has many obvious impacts on the people: seasons, weather, etc. Stars have NO impact whatsoever (known to science today). And the sun is available during the day when people are awake.

Your claim, "The sun ... does not make for a very good tool to know which exact day of the year it is" is false because the time of the sun rise and the height to which it rises depends on the season.

Ancient people without any other frame of reference would notice when it is cold the days are short. When it gets hot the days are long. "We should keep track of when they are long and when they are short. It is easy to do by putting a stick in the ground and putting numbers in a circle around it."

The next logical thing would be to count the days until the short days come back. Pretty soon they will figure out that there are some 365 days in a year. No need to invent an arbitrary system of star maps based on the arbitrary number of 12.

A. As to your personal attack on my approach and my avatar, I am sorry, it does not make sense. If, as you claim, I keep asking questions, then how can you also claim that I pretend to "KNOW". I am willing to learn and to view preconceptions from new angles. Are you? Why do you want ME to make up YOUR mind with "definite answers"?

If I do not understand, I will keep on asking and thinking. I will not accept somebody's arrogance shoved into my brain.

Historians have always made an effort to minimize Jewish influence.

Besides producing Nobel laureates at an improbable rate of 2 out of every 10 winners, they may in fact have had a greater influence of Greek thinking then is usually admitted.

To really appreciate this line of argument requires some intimacy with contemporary biblical literary analysis. The philosopher Yoram Hazony discusses the pragmatism of Ancient Hebrew thought in his book "the philosophy of the Hebrew Scriptures".

The Hebrews certainly had an eclectic belief system based around a basic monotheistic conception. But the how people lived, was not as predetermined and reified as it became during the Talmudic era; judging by the disparate themes and types in Biblical narrative, one finds the mystical and rational side by side.

Just simply look at the Talmud. Even the earliest parts contain such a casuistic interest in logic, which can't be explained away by saying they absorbed it from the Greeks or Romans.

But how deep was the influence? It's important not to shift the credit and creativity of a different culture - the Greeks - to the Jews simply because Greek is alphabetically derived from Semitic. It implies "influence" but influence is a word strung by conditions. How much influence? How much did the Greeks also absorb from the Egyptians? Heredotus - an early Greek historian - spent some time down there. Philosophically, the Greeks were more Egyptian than Hebrew.

However, some interchange must have occurred, and the people the Greeks interacted with were likely Hebrews i.e. Jews. But can we disentangle the historical record to show an unambiguous cause and effect relationship between Jews and Greeks? I don't think so.

Formal logic, philosophical disquisition, was a Greek invention. And for this, we should be eternally grateful.

Originally posted by demongoat

 

it doesn't matter, the hebrews before that used a block script based on aramaic.
... doesn't matter if the greeks borrowed from the phoenicians, everyone borrows from everyone else.
... please go look up what those terms mean.

Yes, we borrow - but usually there is a reason for it. Do you want to distract from that reason?

I believe we borrow a few words from the French. But a whole new way writing, Nope. The Vietnamese "borrowed" the French alphabet, or wait, maybe it was imposed on them.

Was the Greek author Homer "Phoenician"? History books don't seem to tell us the answer. But Homer was the first user of the Phoenician alphabet. Why does he invent (or first use), not only the alphabet - but also the word "Phoenician" - for the people he "borrowed" the alphabet from?

The phoenix represents a majestic bird, was associated with the color of Egyptian Pharaohs (purple), and later adopted later as a symbol in Early Christianity. To give them that name clearly, shows great reverence for the Phoenician people and their culture.

I have no idea where your (I would be happy to entertain...) quotes are from. Next time please indicate your source. And look up something to counter my arguments rather than making non-sense accusations.

Originally posted by Astrocyte
Historians have always made an effort to minimize Jewish influence.

Thanks for your comments. What do you believe was the motivation for historians to minimize Jewish influence?

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


If you'd like a more thorough take on this subject, check out David Nirenbergs "Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition"

The basic theme of the book is how Judaism became the antipode of the prevalent "western culture" at the time. So in effect, anti-Judaism was systemic - an integral feature of the western mentality.

He traces his argument back to ancient Hellenistic times. When the Greeks first entered Judea, they encountered more opposition to their "civilizing" process than anywhere else. The Jews were of the firm belief that not only were the Greeks infidels, but they were also inferior. In the 7th century BCE the very first pogrom occurred in Elephantine, a small town along the Nile. The Egyptian Priests of Khnum "the ram headed god" vied with a group of Hebrews who established the first temple to YHWH outside of Israel, opposite to the Egyptian temple. The Egyptian and Hebrew priests bickered back and forth until one day, after the chief Hebrew priest had been recalled to Judea by the Persian governor, the Egyptians sacked and destroyed the Hebrew Temple to YHWH. You can read all about this in the Elephantine Papyri.

Anti-Judaism seemed to have originated in Egypt. But during the Hellenistic period, the Greeks took up the cause. In the 1st century BCE, In Alexandria, the second known anti-Jewish pogrom occurred. In the 1st century CE, the Romans entered Judea, and they as well began to experience first hand the unusual intransigence of the Jews. They refused to regard Caeser as a god. They were adamant in saying "he is a man". The Jews, unlike the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, drew a very clear line between the "divine" and the mundane. Humans were humans, separated and subjugated to the infinite. There is only one God, and His message is contained in the 5 books of Moses.

It wasn't just the theological claim that Judaism contained the sole truth; it was the difference in lifestyle. Legend has it that in the 3rd century BCE, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, entered the Jewish temple, tore down the items found within the sanctuary, and erected a statue of himself in it's place. with this act of sacrilege came the edict: Jews can no longer observe the Sabbath; can no longer practice circumcision; and can no longer study the Torah. It was an ordinance designed to destroy Judaism. This was the cause of the "Maccabean revolt".

Eventually, the Romans as well learned how deeply the Jews rejected the secular pagan agenda of the Greco-Roman project. In 67 CE, the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple, some 960 Judean Villages, murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews, and dispelled countless others. To finalize this decimation, Hadrian built on the Temple mount a temple to the god Jupiter, and renamed Jerusalem to Aelia Capoltina.

And from then onwards the same theme appears again and again through out Christian history. The Christians merely absorbed this anti-Jewish animus into their thinking. For centuries before, the Greeks and Romans had begun to think of themselves in terms of what they weren't; the Jews had become their most salient opponent. Finally, when the Christian religion was formed, it formed around the idea of what they weren't: they weren't Jews.

The Jewish metaphysics is dualistic, despite its emphasis that God is one in the Shema Yisrael. Elohim and YHWH symbolized two forms that the infinite God took on; he was either the impersonal forces in nature, or the personal divinity which every human being is made in the image of. For the Greeks, the contradiction was insufferable. How can they maintain two opposite opinions? This grated on their need for simple logic; and to boot, their religion was conservative. It made distinctions between the "pure" and "profane" in diet and in lifestyle. The Greeks, on the other hand, were what we could call today "skeptics". If they had a religious sense, it had to be couched in something more observable then the human existential condition; it needed to be contextualized by a background i.e. nature. Greek religion, like Roman religion, accepted the ferocity and amorality of the natural world, and it was only right and natural that morality extend from that domain. The Jews, of course, balked at such an infirm suggestion.

When Christianity imbibed Judaism, it also imbibed western Greek ideas; whether that be stoicism, or neoplatonism - both strains of thought can be made out in Christian thought. What is conspicuously missing, however, is the Jewish metaphysics, replaced by an essentially stoic metaphysics. The practical morality of Judaism which recommended an "eye for an eye" - which, according to later Rabbis, didn't necessarily mean the death penalty, but some form of proportional justice - was supplanted by a quietest acceptance of evil. If someone slaps you, offer your other cheek.

I'm not deriding this Christian perspective, I'm merely pointing out that it was the diametric opposite of Judaism, and so, like the greeks and romans, the Christians began to think of themselves as "anti-Jewish".

This position seamlessly - and seemingly, unconsciously - transformed in the enlightenment from a religious hatred, to a racial hatred; and now, the author argues, the west's systemic opposition to Judaism has once again mutated to become anti-Zionist, anti- the Jewish state.

The argument seems sound. When a culture spends countless generations evolving a tendency, ensconced in it's very belief system, that externalizes its opposite - the majority Christian population opposed by the external minority Jews, or the majority of Europeans "subverted" by the externalized minority of 'powerful' Jews (a statistical fallacy; Jews were over-represented, yes, but they were still a mere 10-20 % of the overall bankers and industrialists; to to think they exerted such a powerful force even over their gentile colleagues is to mythologize the Jew; this is what happened. A purely irrational tendency BUILT INTO the western mentality). Again, today, the majority of nations - the European/Arab ones particularly - have externalized the Jews and conceive their nation - Israel - as a "source" of world conflict. Irrational exaggeration if there ever was one.

Originally posted by Astrocyte

 

like the greeks and romans, the Christians began to think of themselves as "anti-Jewish".

Thanks for the lessons in history and philosophy. However, you never answered my sole question,

What do you believe was the motivation for historians to minimize Jewish influence?

As to the Elephantine Papyri, they were written also by Jewish authors, which you failed to mention, in another instance of minimizing Jewish influence.

If you don't want to answer, that is okay, I am capable to come up with my own theory. I will take statements from Jewish authors, such as David Nirenberg, as what they are, biased.

Why did Greeks, Romans, Christians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Western Tradition, 20 European countries all hate Jews? Maybe I will use that as the title for my next thread.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

What do you believe was the motivation for historians to minimize Jewish influence?

The whole post I just wrote was about just that. Some motivations are unconscious. Seeing the Jews as its polar opposite has cemented itself into the western psyche.

Would you like some speculative rationalizations for why historians would seek to minimize Jewish influence? Either a personal philosophical opposition to what the "Jews" in their historico-theological role represent; or, perhaps just as likely, an unconscious aversion. A neurological, possibly epigenetic visceral response to Jews.

Why did Greeks, Romans, Christians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Western Tradition, 20 European countries all hate Jews? Maybe I will use that as the title for my next thread.

Ahh, ok, so you are a believer. Because they all hate the Jews, the Jews must, of course, be worthy of that hatred.

It's a bit ironic that you attack the first person who responded to your thread as an irrational fanatic, when you, showing a similar irrationality, believe that Jews somehow deserve this ill treatment.

Originally posted by Astrocyte

 

The whole post I just wrote was about just that. Some motivations are unconscious. Seeing the Jews as its polar opposite has cemented itself into the western psyche.

I just re-read your whole post, and while it talks about something unconscious - I consider it PREPOSTEROUS of you to pretend that you know the unconscious motivation of (what ? thousands of) historians from many countries and many different backgrounds - including JEWISH. You lump them ALL TOGETHER IN ONE BIG PILE and you claim to know their motivation - unconscious to themselves - but you know it !!! Wow.

Would you like some speculative rationalizations for why historians would seek to minimize Jewish influence? Either a personal philosophical opposition to what the "Jews" in their historico-theological role represent; or, perhaps just as likely, an unconscious aversion. A neurological, possibly epigenetic visceral response to Jews. (my underscore)

If this is your point you could have simply said "Historians have an unconscious hatred for Jews and therefore minimize the Jews' historic achievements." That is all that I would have needed from you. But you don't even understand the words you are using.

Ahh, ok, so you are a believer. Because they all hate the Jews, the Jews must, of course, be worthy of that hatred.

What? I quoted your own tantrums about how the Jews were hated, opposed, mistreated, destroyed and 'pogrommed' in all those countries. You must REALLY hate the Jews then.

Originally posted by JilianK
reply to post by ThinkingHuman

 

How Dare you call Jesus Jewish

Typical Zionist propaganda, sorry, Israeli government might be doing revision of history.

But they don't own ATS....yet

I bet you they do !!!

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


For the sake of future conversations, you should try to be more aware of the over-the-top passion that you show. Passion undermind's our ability to stay reasonable. I understand the temptation to succumb to it, but it sullies the quality of any conversation and tends to provoke others to engage in the same behavior, which will only promote misunderstanding and contention.

I just re-read your whole post, and while it talks about something unconscious - I consider it PREPOSTEROUS of you to pretend that you know the unconscious motivation of (what ? thousands of) historians from many countries and many different backgrounds - including JEWISH. You lump them ALL TOGETHER IN ONE BIG PILE and you claim to know their motivation - unconscious to themselves - but you know it !!! Wow.

First, by mentioning David Nirenbergs study, I think it is plausible. I usually avoid absolute statements like "this is what is happening!" when really, I'm basing my claim on a series of presuppositions and assumptions. Maybe you should try to assess your own thinking in the same light.

Second, this is the ratiocination of the theory:

1) The past affects the future.

This is a fairly straight forward statement. If something happens again and again, were likely to do it again

But this statement doesn't describe the process. How does the past affect the future? Through what unconscious process?

2) System 1 thinking biases our system 2 mind to focus on features that we or our culture have habitually focused upon

If you aren't acquainted with the dual process theory, you can read about it Here, or check out Daniel Kahnemans "thinking, fast and slow".

This is what makes David Nirenbergs theory plausible. Because western culture has spent so many centuries defining themselves in relation to the Jews, it is plausible that this metaphysical psychology has biased our conscious minds to find faults in the Jew (or tangentially, anything 'jewish' like the state of Israel, for example) where none rationally exist.

Historians have an unconscious hatred for Jews and therefore minimize the Jews' historic achievements.

I never said "all" historians; only some of them. And the majority of those who prefer to minimize Jewish influence on modern civilization, I wouldn't describe their unconscious feelings as "hatred" but as an ever so slight but meaningful aversion.

But you don't even understand the words you are using.

Is there are a reason why you're insulting me?

What? I quoted your own tantrums

Aye.. Where did I have a tantrum? I simply wrote a summary of David Nirenbergs argument. I guess you forgot about that while building up your anger while reading it.

Originally posted by Astrocyte

 

For the sake of future conversations, you should

You know what you can do with this kind of a statement!

I asked you ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: "What do you believe was the motivation for historians to minimize Jewish influence?"

YOU went on in a long post - showing passion (which is fine by me) yet you accuse ME of "over-the-top passion". But you still have not answered my question - even though I proposed an answer for you which I believe matches your state of mind.

Instead, you twist your own words. Your first sentence in this thread was:
"Historians have always made an effort to minimize Jewish influence."
It now becomes:
"I never said 'all' historians; only some of them."

Not true, you did NOT say "some". "Historians" means 'all or the vast majority of historians'. If the meaning of your own words change from one post to the next, there is little point in having a discussion.

Now, I don't need your answer anymore because you have made so many statements of EXTREME, UNFOUNDED BIAS against whatever you call "western" culture. These here are ALL DIRECT QUOTES from you:

"western culture has spent so many centuries defining themselves in relation to the Jews"
"metaphysical psychology has biased our conscious minds to find faults in the Jew (or tangentially, anything 'jewish' "
From your previous post:
"Seeing the Jews as its polar opposite has cemented itself into the western psyche"
"anti-Judaism was systemic - an integral feature of the western mentality"
"mythologize the Jew; this is what happened. A purely irrational tendency BUILT INTO the western mentality" (your caps)
"the west's systemic opposition to Judaism has once again mutated to become anti-Zionist, anti- the Jewish state"
"David Nirenbergs 'Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition' "
"you, showing a similar irrationality, believe that Jews somehow deserve this ill treatment"
(you insulting me)

Such statements I call tantrums, because you WISH them to be true but you offer NOTHING to support them. You pretend these statement must be accepted without a need to prove them. When somebody disagrees you throw at them wild accusations, of "over-the-top passion"! I have passion - at least I do not have love or hate for any group of people, only individuals.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

YOU went on in a long post - showing passion (which is fine by me) yet you accuse ME of "over-the-top passion"

Showing passion? Ok. In online conversations, passion is largely conveyed or enunciated by CAPITALIZING your words, and using exclamation marks! In my opinion, overuse of that writing style doesn't conduce to effective communication.

In any case, while passion is normal, it still undermines our ability to stay reasonable.

"I never said 'all' historians; only some of them."

It needn't have been taken hyperbolically. For some reason you seem intent on interpreting that statement as an absolute, when it didn't necessarily mean that. But now that I cleared that up in my last post, still, you're bent on focusing on it.

Frankly, I don't even know what the purpose of this conversation was. I gave a summary of an interesting book I read, and you've expressed a degree of unfettered aggression that I simply cannot explain.

"western culture has spent so many centuries defining themselves in relation to the Jews"

I'll address each of these quotes, as I think you think I'm somehow "against" western civilization. For your information, I'm a neuroscientist, not Jewish, or religious, so I don't really have any bone to pick with the west.

When I say "define" I obviously didn't mean the essence of western civilization is predicated on it's relationship with Jews. There is far more to the west than that relationship; however, from the time of the Greeks onwards, the west began a dialogue with Jews and Judaism that began to influence the wests own peculiar metaphysical outlook. The Jews became for the Greeks (you can read Judeophobia for a collection of writings and analyses - by a NON JEW ) a unique cultural and intellectual foe; no where else were their ideas about life challenged and rejected by such large numbers...so naturally, this opposition spurred a reaction. By the time the Romans came on the scene, they had inherited the Greek prejudice against the Jews. And like the Greeks, they were intent on dominating them.

After Judeas collapse and Romes 'romanization' of Judea, slowly but surely, Christianity mythologized the meaning of the Jew. For the Romans, their opposition was largely cultural and philosophical. For the Christians, this rational opposition transmogrified into religious myth; the "Jews" killed Jesus. Early Christian writers like Marcion spread vitriolic tales about the Jews worshiping a "demon" god; and many gnostics sects took up his claim, albeit, not as ardently as he and his followers did. Tertullian and Augustine of hippo also spoke of the Jews in deprecatory tone, conceiving them as an "opposite" of the world that Christ had prepared; the Jewish metaphysics was the antipode of the one introduced by Christ.

When a populace conditions itself for countless generations to this type of metaphysics, the psyche itself becomes attuned in a particular direction; it becomes biased by its "system 1" mindset. When the Jews became "Jews" in the racial sense in the 18th century, Christian biases unconsciously produced "rationales" for why the Jews were somehow harmful, or, as many thought and continue to think, conspiring against mankind (which would be consistent with the demonic image attached to them by early and Medieval Christianity).

So how you can even question this completely sound theory is a little bizarre. Clearly, you're more emotionally invested in this subject than you let on in your initial post.

at least I do not have love or hate for any group of people, only individuals.

Wow. I have no idea what on earth you are talking about. Seriously, read over that. You think I "hate groups"? How on earth could did you manage to twist what I wrote to lead you to such a outlandish interpretation?

I love western civilization. I support it; and I think the Jews are a PART of it. The Greeks and Jews each contributed a part to this great culture. How, or why, you decided to form this outrageous opinion about me, I cannot say. All I could recommend, and DID recommend, was that you try to control your passion while you read what I write and while you write, as this is where misunderstandings originate.

Prior to the "ancient Greek civilization" were the so-called "Greek Dark Ages". Out of those, suddenly the first "Olympic games" took place in 776 BC. Two authors, Homer and Hesiod, seemingly by COINCIDENCE (?) at the same time, wrote their mythology which became the basis for the "new" culture. They were the first to use the new Phoenician alphabet. What was their background? Could they have been anything other than "Phoenician"?

The period following Alexander is called "Hellenistic". This word appears to have originated from Jewish writers who gave the name "Hellene" to Greeks for being pagan to distinguish themselves from them. If you have other ideas as to the origin of the word Hellenistic, please let me hear it.

I don't mean to suggest that this is proof of a related group of Jews having jump-started this revolution. But it is a further indication of the close relationship between Greek and Jewish civilizations.

Originally posted by Astrocyte

 

By the time the Romans came on the scene, they had inherited the Greek prejudice against the Jews.
Christianity mythologized the meaning of the Jew
opposition transmogrified into religious myth
Jewish metaphysics was the antipode of the one introduced by Christ.
a populace conditions itself for countless generations to this type of metaphysics

You exclusively write in hyperboles and stereotypes. No reasoning. No rationale. This is where misunderstandings originate - and worse. If I were to meet you in person, I would be afraid you might put me into some category of people you have all that hate for.

The Jews were a insignificant people until the Greeks, namely Alexander, came along in the 4th century BC. The Greeks developed writing as far back as 6,000 years ago.

When the Romans conquered the Hellenised Middle East, the emperor Tiberius asked his generals of the Jews, "what did the Greeks write about them?" The response was "nothing sire" to which he replied "then these people are not important to us". The Jews were so insignificant that the Greeks did not deem them worthy of mention unlike other barbarian races like Celts, Scythians and assorted European tribes which they wrote about quite extensively.

The New Testament was written in Greek as that was the first language of the Jews after Alexander's conquest. It is also based on Greek philosophy rather than the savage brutal uncivilised desert tribe nonsense of the Old Testament which itself is thought to have been written perhaps as recently as the Greek conquest and civilising of the Middle East.

This is what Tacitus writes of the Jews.

While the East was under the sway of the Assyrians, the Medes, and the Persians, Jews were the most contemptible of the subject tribes. When the Macedonians became supreme, King Antiochus strove to destroy the national superstition, and to introduce Greek civilization, but was prevented by his war with the Parthians from at all improving this vilest of nations; for at this time the revolt of Arsaces had taken place.

Originally posted by Macdon

 

The Jews were a insignificant people until the Greeks, namely Alexander, came along in the 4th century BC. The Greeks developed writing as far back as 6,000 years ago.

When you say "Jews", does that include Semites in general, such as Phoenicians, Hyksos and Habirus?

If your source of the 6000 number turns out to be authentic it will re-write a whole lot of history.

Originally posted by Macdon
The Jews were a insignificant people until the Greeks, namely Alexander, came along in the 4th century BC. The Greeks developed writing as far back as 6,000 years ago.

Load of crap.

Writing in Greece developed from the Phoenician Alphabet.

Harte