LOS PROTOCOLOS DE LOS SABIOS DE SION

Churchill and the Jews
One of his finest hours.
by Amy K. Rosenthal

Sir Martin Gilbert is a renowned British historian, as well as Winston Churchill’s official biographer. He is the author of 72 books, including many devoted to Israeli and Jewish history, among them The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War, Israel: A History and Kristallnacht: Prelude to Destruction.

His latest book, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, provides a road map of the statesman’s intricate relationship with Jewish personalities and issues during his lifetime. It also unites Gilbert’s two primary interests – Churchill and the Jewish people.

Although operating in a cultural milieu in which anti-Semitism was rampant among Europe’s ruling elites, Gilbert demonstrates how Churchill differed greatly from his peers, who were critical of Jews and Zionism, and scoffed at even the remotest suggestion of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. Indeed, Churchill had close familial ties with prominent British and European Jews, and once remarked that the Jewish people were “the most formidable and most remarkable race which has appeared in the world.”
World Jewish Digest recently spoke with Gilbert about Churchill’s diplomatic role in the establishment of a Jewish state, his unflinching support for the Zionist enterprise and his legacy, which resounds even today.
World Jewish Digest (WJD): Could you briefly explain the ways in which Churchill advocated for a Jewish homeland in Palestine?

He truly believed the Zionists would make something special of Palestine.

Sir Martin Gilbert (SMG): His principal involvement began in 1921 when Prime Minister Lloyd George appointed him as colonial secretary with special responsibility for working out the rules and regulations of the Palestine mandate with regard to the Jewish national homeland. The first [notable] decision he made was to give the Zionists…monopoly power to modernize the country – to harness the waters of the Jordan and Yarkon rivers for electrical power, which not only would create employment for both Jews and Arabs, but also enable the Jews to begin to plan for substantial urban and rural development in Palestine. Although Churchill’s decision led to fierce anti-Semitic outbursts against him in the British House of Commons, he unfailingly maintained it because he truly believed the Zionists would make something special of Palestine. He stressed over and over that it was the British government’s duty, and to a certain extent the British taxpayer’s obligation, to make sure that the Jews could build up the industrial potential of Palestine.
JD: What factors, in your opinion, convinced Churchill that ‘the Zionists would make something special of Palestine’?
SMG: There are a couple of reasons. First, he had this very short but very intense period where he was a member of parliament for Manchester Northwest in 1904. During that time, he was deeply impressed by the ethical and communal standards of its Jewish community. Second, his admiration for the Jews was reinforced during his 1921 trip to Palestine. There was this episode, which I found in the archives of Rishon Le-Zion [an early Jewish settlement], related to Churchill’s visit. A debate had gone on before his arrival between the old-timers and the newcomers. The old-timers said, ‘Look, we’ve got an opportunity. The British minister is coming. Let’s tell him all our problems – the fact that the Arabs are attacking us, that the weather isn’t good, etc.’ But the newcomers said, ‘No, not at all. Let’s show him instead what we’re capable of doing,’ which is exactly what they did. Churchill again was deeply impressed. In fact, the first thing he tells parliament when he gets back to London is that he’s seen these people and their enthusiasm, and states unequivocally, ‘I defy anybody to say that [they] should be at the mercy of Arab attacks from outside.’
Given that he had seen the idealism of Zionism firsthand, he believed the British government was right to commit itself to a Jewish national homeland and he argued strongly for it. His 1922 White Paper, [the parliamentary paper enunciating the British government’s policy], that stated that ‘the Jews are in Palestine of a right; not on sufferance,’ was eventually passed by the House of Commons and the League of Nations. This led to the immigration into Palestine of 300,000 Jews.
WJD: Why did Zionism attract Churchill’s personal sympathy?
SMG: First of all, Churchill, like many of his contemporaries, was deeply versed in the Bible, but unlike many of his contemporaries, the biblical stories were not simply something he had read and vaguely remembered. They were something he had read, remembered and, if you like, dramatized. For him, God’s promise to the Jews was something that had really taken place and which he could recite at any time.
In my book…I give some excerpts from his 1931 article in the Sunday Chronicle about Moses, which takes issue with people who say that Moses was only an allegorical figure. Churchill said, ‘No, not at all. This is reality and [his identity and leadership were] a genuine historical event.’ But what had excited him about the Moses story was, on the one hand, the Jewish destiny — God’s promise to the Jews — and, on the other, Jewish ethics.

“On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.”

There’s an extraordinary passage by Churchill with reference to the latter in a speech he gave in Jerusalem in 1921, which dumbfounds me every time I read it. He said, ‘We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics, which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.’ That’s an extraordinary thing to say, especially in public.
In addition, I cannot stress enough the importance of the few days Churchill spent throughout Palestine in 1921. The contrast between the extraordinary negative points of view put forth by the Palestinian Arabs and the equally positive ones put forth by the Zionists struck him enormously. Churchill didn’t like negativism and he couldn’t comprehend why the Palestinian Arabs were being so negative. It’s quite curious. If you have a look at what the Palestinian Arabs told him, you’ll find that three or four are actually in the Hamas Charter today, such as the world Jewish conspiracy and so on and so forth. That said, the Palestinian Arabs just made a bad impression on him and subsequently, he became very negative toward them; in modern terms, almost racist. When Churchill spoke to the Palestinian Arabs, he actually said to them, ‘You’ve got to help the Zionists. They’re people of quality and inasmuch as they’ll succeed, you’ll succeed. Without them you won’t succeed.’
WJD: Why did Churchill, unlike other British government officials during his day, refuse to make concessions to Arab states or to promote policies that favored the Arabs at the expense of the Jews?
SMG: Churchill didn’t like bullying or appeasement from weakness or fear. In the 1930’s, he was totally against the British government’s policy of appeasement toward both Germany and the Arab states. In fact, Neville Chamberlain and his government and cabinet committees were very fearful of the Arabs, saying, ‘Look, the Saudis are against us. The Muslims in India are against us. The Egyptians, who had just become independent in 1936, are against us.’ This led Chamberlain to make the appalling statement: ‘If we must offend one side, then let’s offend the Jews rather than the Arabs.’ Now, Churchill couldn’t accept that. In his speech against the 1939 White Paper, which restricted Jewish immigration and ended effectively Jewish land purchase in Palestine, he responded by saying, ‘We’re groveling to these people because they’re threatening us, but we’ve given our pledge to the Jews. How will they react? How will Hitler react if we renege on our pledge to the Jews? What value will there be in our commitments if we don’t honor this one?’
WJD: This was a great sign of moral clarity on Churchill’s behalf…
SMG: Yes, I think so, but you must understand that in 1939, these Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia as they are now in a curious way, were putting tremendous pressure on the British government.
WJD: Did you discover anything while researching Churchill & the Jews that surprised even you?
SMG: I think the thing that blew me away was when the Conservative [party] leadership in May 1940 was discussing who would succeed Neville Chamberlain in a time when the war in Europe was at a climax and Britain was in great danger. I found in the papers of the leading conservative Sir Samuel Hoare a slip of paper that listed the reasons why Churchill would not make a suitable prime minister. One of them was his ‘pro-Zionist stance on Jewish land purchase.’ The idea that this should be a reason for him not becoming prime minister of Britain, at a time when Britain needed, if you like, someone of his obvious qualities, is truly unbelievable.
WJD: The State of Israel will celebrate its 60th anniversary this year. As a historian, what, if anything, would you like to stress about its first six decades?
SMG: Israel is a young state and young states have to think initially in terms of survival. Look, 60 years after the foundation of the United States, it was still fighting a war with Britain. Sixty years constitute a short time, particularly for a country like Israel, which has neighbors and enemies who are not giving it much of a chance. That said, I think another very difficult problem for Israel, which is something that doesn’t generally affect newer states, is the occupation since 1967. One wouldn’t wish being an occupying power on anybody. It happened by accident. Israel was not seeking to be the ruler. It happened and this means that it’s a burden.
WJD: In your opinion, is Israel in need of a Churchill at present?
SMG: I hope Israel has the leaders today that it needs. I think that’s all you can say. You just have to hope and pray that the ones they’ve got are the right ones.
WJD: There have been numerous books since 9/11 that equate the battle against radical Islam as similar to that against Nazism. Do you think Churchill would draw the same parallel if he were alive today?

You mustn’t give up if you believe in something strongly, especially if you see that something as contributing toward the well-being of mankind.

SMG: What they have in common, for whatever reason, is that both of them have decided that the most effective demon is the Jew. All I can say is that Churchill was a persistent opponent of anti-Semitism. In addition, he didn’t feel that religion should be militant. Churchill had seen what we today call militant Islam in its worst form. As a soldier on the Pakistan-Afghan border in 1897, he had seen the most terrible things, which had been carried out by Muslim fanatics in that area. He had that experience.
WJD: As Churchill’s official biographer, what do you consider to be his principal legacy?
SMG: His personal legacy was that you have to try to overcome and get past setbacks and rejections. In other words, you mustn’t give up if you believe in something strongly, especially if you see that something as contributing toward the well-being of mankind.
WJD: What, according to you, is the foremost message that Jews and non-Jews should draw from your book Churchill and the Jews?
Get Aish.com’s Free Email Updates and Be Inspired.
SMG: Jews should draw a lesson that they do have some friends, but that the friends they have can often be in deep trouble for being their friends. For non- Jews, I think the lesson is that Zionism is not racism. Zionism is not some aberration; nor is it neo-colonialism. Churchill, who wasn’t a soft, starry-eyed person but a man with a fine head on his shoulders, understood this.

Segun tomado de, http://www.aish.com/ci/a/48961901.html?s=rab el martes, 12 de agosto de 2014.

The history of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem
King Solomon built the first Temple in the 10th century BCE, on a site whose sanctity went back eons before that.
By David B. Green | Aug. 11, 2014 | 12:42 PM

Depiction of the Temple Menorah (IAA)

An incised depiction of the Temple Menorah, found at the site of the Temple in the Old City of Jerusalem. Photo by Israel Antiquities Authority

Since at least July 2000, when U.S.-sponsored peace talks at Camp David, Maryland, collapsed, soon to be followed by what became known as the Second Intifada, the very existence of an Israelite temple in ancient Jerusalem has been a point of contention between Palestinians and Israelis. This is ironic, since the principal reason that the place Jews call the “Temple Mount” and Muslims call the “Haram al-Sharif” (“Noble Sanctuary”) is supremely holy to Judaism, Islam and Christianity too is that it is where both the First and the Second Temples stood.

The New Testament tells of several important episodes in the life of Jesus that took place in the precinct of the Second Temple, and the Koran and other Muslim texts refer to the Temple specifically and to the great holiness of the mount on which it stood. It is the very spot from which the Prophet Muhammad is said to have begun his Night Journey to Heaven, in the 7th century.

Holy site going back thousands of years

The First Temple was built in the 10th century B.C.E. by King Solomon, according to the Hebrew Bible (1 Kings 5-9). But the sanctity of the site goes back hundreds and possibly thousands of years before that.

The land on which Solomon built the temple had been acquired by King David, Solomon’s father, who thought to build a grand temple himself. But the Lord, according to the biblical story, rejected David’s ambition because of the king’s sins and the job passed to the son.

The land David chose, a threshing floor, was associated with Moriah, where the patriarch Abraham brought his son Isaac for sacrifice (Genesis 22:14). (In the Bible, the mount is also referred to as “Zion,” a name that eventually came to encompass the entire Land of Israel.) That too is a tradition shared by the three great monotheistic religions. Other than that, and a few other minor references to the site in the Bible, however, there is no obvious explanation why Solomon built his temple here.

What is clear is that the Temple was meant to be a permanent residence for the Ark of the Covenant (Aron Habrit), which held the stone tablets of the law Moses received on Mt. Sinai, and [which traveled with the Israelites during their journey through the desert.

‘Feeding’ the god

Temples were standard institutions in the Ancient Near East, and until the construction of Solomon’s Temple, it was normal, even among the Hebrews, for individual localities to have their own altar or sanctuary.

Among pagan peoples, the temple would be the home of their god, who would be represented in the form of an idol. Among the Israelites, the Temple was initially thought of as the literal residence of God, but God’s presence was intangible, at most a type of radiance called “kavod” in Hebrew.

As the conception of God changed from that of a neighborhood or national deity who had an address and needed to be placated, to being universal and omnipresent, the sanctuary evolved from being the place where God lived to being the place that the people visited so as to offer service to God, in the form of sacrifices. By the time of the final destruction of the Temple, the Jews, as they now could be called, no longer needed to “feed” God with physical sacrifices, but rather could serve him with prayer and obedience to his laws.

No direct evidence for Solomon’s Temple

The precise location of Solomon’s Temple — the First Temple — on the mount is not known, nor have any physical artifacts from it been unearthed by archaeologists, though there are numerous artifacts portending to its existence (see the pictures gallery). Even if remnants have been preserved below-ground, the fact that two Muslim shrines stand on the Temple Mount – the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aksa Mosque – means there is no possibility of Israeli archaeologists excavating there.

That being said, in 1999, the Waqf (the Muslim authority entrusted with the maintenance and functioning of the mount) began construction of an underground mosque in the southeastern corner of the Haram, adjacent to Al-Aksa. When Jewish archaeologists observed that the large quantities of soil and detritus extracted from the site were being dumped a little to the northeast of the Old City, in the Kidron Valley, they organized an ongoing project, called the Temple Mount Sifting Project, to go through the refuse systematically.

Large numbers of items that they date to the First Temple period have been found.

The Temple was meant to serve as a single facility for the United Monarchy, where sacrifices to God would take place, and where, in the Holy of Holies, an elaborate chamber in the innermost sanctum of the Temple, God’s presence was said to dwell. After the single monarchy split into the distinct kingdoms of Judah and Israel, which happened, according to the Bible, under Solomon’s son Rehoboam, there was again a duplication of temples, as new altars were erected in Israel, at Dan, in the north, and Bethel, in the south.

After Israel was conquered in about 720 B.C.E., and its 10 tribes driven into exile, Jerusalem again became the lone cultic center.

Solomon’s Temple sustained several attacks by foreign powers before finally, in 586 B.C.E., being totally destroyed by the army of Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king. The residents of Judah were sent into a short-lived exile, in what is present-day Iraq.

With the fall of Babylon, the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great allowed the Jews to return to the Land of Israel, beginning in 538. A rebuilt temple was dedicated in 515 B.C.E. – a little-known precursor to the grand structure called Herod’s Temple.

‘Herod’s Temple’

That Second Temple was an expanded and significantly upgraded structure whose construction was led by the half-Jewish, half-Edumean Herod, the Roman-appointed king of Judea who died in 4 B.C.E. Finished in about 20 B.C.E., the extravagant edifice stood less than a century. The first Jewish Revolt began in 66 C.E. and in 70 C.E., the Roman general (later emperor) Titus looted the Temple and leveled it.

Following the destruction of the Second Temple during the First Revolt and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem itself, accompanied by the exile of its inhabitants, during the Second Jewish Revolt, in 132-135, that Judaism made a sharp turn from being a temple-based cult that relied on daily sacrifices to its god. It became a mobile faith that revolved around law and prayer, and whose members soon spread out around the Mediterranean basin, and later to more distant points. The synagogue replaced the single Temple, but recalled the sanctuary by always being physically oriented in the direction of Jerusalem. Prayer took the place of animal sacrifices.

Jews still mourn the destruction of the Temple, principally on Tisha B’av (the Ninth of the month of Av), the date traditionally associated with the destruction of both the First and Second Temples, and other catastrophes that befell the people. But the Jewish longing for “Zion” evolved from being focused mainly on the loss of the ritual center of the Temple, to mourning over the loss of the land. It therefore made sense that the modern movement dedicated to reestablishment of a Jewish national home in the Land of Israel called itself “Zionism.” Yet there remains a significant stream within Orthodox Judaism that aspires to rebuild the Temple, in Jerusalem, and to return to an era when Jews worshipped through pilgrimage and sacrifices.

Segun tomada de http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.606550, el lunes 11 de agosto de 2014.

Tu B’av: The Jewish Valentine’s Day that came from prehistory
Dying for the Golden Calf? Celebrating tribal intermarriage? Or, simply, marking the summer equinox? Whatever its origin, latter-day Zionists liked this holiday.
By Elon Gilad | Aug. 10, 2014 | 3:21 PM

Benjaminites seizing wives from Shiloh

“…and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.” John Everett Millais, 1847. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

Women dancing in a vineyard in Kibbutz Ein HaShofet in 1944, celebrating the harvest, as has been done for thousands of years. Photo by Ein Hashofet archive.

On the 15th of the summer month of Av, under a full moon, young Jewish men and women dressed in white would go out and dance in the vineyards of ancient Judea.

That is practically all we know about this most ancient of holidays.

We know it because of a single passage in the Mishnah, quoting Simeon ben Gamliel: “No days were as good for Israel as the 15th of Av and the Day of Atonement, on which the sons of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white clothes…and the girls of Jerusalem would go out and dance in the vineyards” (Ta’anit 10).

The question is why. There are a few clues.

There’s something about marriage

What was this dancing about? The sages of the Talmud were evidently somewhat puzzled by this, since the Talmud gives us six different answers.

According to Rabbi Judah bar Ilai, Samuel of Nehardea said that the holiday was an annual celebration of the day the prohibition was lifted on intermarriage among the 12 tribes, which is described in the story of the Daughters of Zelophehad, Numbers 36. Intermarriage among the ancient Israelite tribes was forbidden: “This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad…only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry: So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to trib.”

Rabbah bar Hana got more specific. He said that Rabbi Johanan bar Nappaha said the 15th of Av marks the end of a prohibition to marrying the daughters of the tribe of Benjamin, as described in the Book of Judges, no doubt due to the passage in that story that reads: “And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.” (21:21)

Forgiven for the Golden Calf

Then there’s the theory that Tu B’Av marks the day on which the generation sentenced to die in the desert for the sin of the Golden Calf stopped dying. This view was propounded by Rabbi Dimi bar Yossef, based on Rabbi Nachman.

According to a midrash found in the Jerusalem Talmud (Ta’anit 4) and other rabbinic texts people would die by the thousands on each Tisha B’Av, the 9th of the month. This created a logistical nightmare. To cope with burying the huge numbers of dead, Moses decreed that every person would dig his own grave, and sleep in it on the night of Tisha B’Av. The next day, survivors would just have to cover those that had died during the night.

According to this midrash, when on a certain Tisha B’Av no one died and the punishment seemed to have ended, Moses kept the people sleeping in their graves for another six days – until Tu B’Av, when the full moon indicated to the people that they hadn’t miscounted the days and that the punishment was truly over.

Pilgrimages and slaughter

A fourth theory was propounded by a Talmudist called Ulla, who said that Tu B’Av was an anniversary of a decision by King Hoshea, the last Israelite king, voiding the decree of King Jeroboam 50 years earlier that banned pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem.

The fifth idea – quite the anachronism – is from Rabbi Matana, who said that Tu B’Av marks the day the Romans allowed the Jews to bury the thousands of people slaughtered in Beitar at the end of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. According to tradition, the city was taken by Roman soldiers on Tisha B’Av 135 CE and as punishment for the Jews’ insubordination, they wouldn’t let the Jews bury the dead for six days. God is said to have miraculously preserved the bodies from rotting during that time.

The last answer given by the Talmud, and most likely of the lot, is that of Rabbi Jacob Bar Acha. He postulates that Tu B’Av marks the Summer Equinox, the point of which the days start getting shorter and the dry season nears its end. According to Bar Acha, Rabbi Yissa said that Tu B’Av was the last day to chop down firewood for the Temple. This tradition – of celebrating the end of the wood-cutting season with song and dance – was still being observed by Syrian peasants in some towns in Syria in the 20th century.

Sun, worship and wine

If this is in fact the case, it seems that Tu B’Av predates Judaism itself, preserving an ancient form of sun worship, possibly coupled with an agricultural holiday celebrating the grape harvest that coincides with the Summer Equinox. We have no direct evidence for this ancient celebration.

Over the generations, Tu B’Av was a minor Jewish holiday. The only tradition that was preserved over the ages was omitting “Tachanun” – a somber part of the daily prayers omitted on other holiday and joyous days.

But come the 19th century, and especially in the 20th century, certain Zionist writers yearned for the rebirth of ancient Jewish and Canaanite traditions and holidays in the reborn Jewish State.

Tu B’Av, which at least in the Mishnah appears to be a celebration of youth, romance and dancing, seemed like a perfect candidate for revival.

The first Hebrew novelist, Prussian-born Abraham Mapu, wrote in his novel “Ayit Tzavua” (which has been translated as “Hypocrite Eagle”) about celebrating Tu B’Av on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. The poet Y. L. Gordon wrote a poem describing the celebration of Tu B’Av in the vineyards of Ein Gedi. The author A. L. Levinsky wrote, in a futuristic story taking place in Israel in the year 2040, about celebrations of Tu B’Av, and that’s just a few examples.

The Jews settling in Palestine marked the day spasmodically. On Tu B’Av 1925, an annual celebration of the youth in the Jezreel Valley kibbutzim was established, in the spirit of ancient times. But the concept fizzled very quickly. During the 1920s and 30s, parties took place on Tu B’Av in Tel Aviv, with the celebrants wearing white. The holiday didn’t gain traction. There were sporadic parties and events on Tu B’Av during the first four decades of the State of Israel, but they were rare.

Then come the 1990s and mad marketing: retailers, party promoters, restaurateurs, flower growers and chocolate manufacturers saw the light, and started promoting the “Jewish Valentine’s Day.” Their efforts have had only moderate success: the “real” Valentine’s Day is still far more popular. That said, the holiday seems to get more popular by the year, and why not. There’s nothing wrong with another day to celebrate love.

Segun tomado de, http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.609805 el lunes, 11 de agosto de 2014.

Was the Virgin Mary a virgin?
This ancient question boils down to the origin of the word ‘virgin’ in biblical texts, and the evolution of belief.
By Elon Gilad | Jun. 18, 2014 | 10:40 AM | 38

Mary, painted by Fra Angelico, circa 1437-1446. Photo by The Yorck Project, Wikimedia Commons

Christians widely believe that Jesus was born of Mary without sexual intercourse, and some believe she remained a virgin to her death. Where do these beliefs come from?

Before addressing the question of Mary’s virginity, it is useful to discuss what exactly we mean by “virgin.” This is not a discussion about the birds and the bees, rather an elucidation of three closely related Catholic doctrines about Mary that are often confused – the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Mary’s virginity. It is a doctrine stating that Mary herself was born without Original Sin, and as such will not be discussed here.

The two other doctrines do concern the matter of Mary’s virginity. The Virgin Birth of Jesus deals with her virginity before giving birth to Jesus, while the Perpetual Virginity doctrine contends that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, and to her death.

The earliest Christian works, The Epistles of Paul, do not mention virgin birth, though this doesn’t necessarily prove that the doctrine did not exist at the time, or that he was unaware of it. Paul was more concerned with theological matters than with narrating the life and ministry of Jesus. Still, the Pauline epistles do not so much as mention it.

It is in the gospels, written several decades after the Epistles of Paul, that we first hear of the Virgin Birth doctrine.

Virgin Birth and a mistake in translation

Two of the four gospels have an account of Jesus’ birth, the earlier one being the Gospel of Matthew. The other is the Gospel of Luke.

Pope Francis I swings an incense burner to bless a statue of the Virgin Mary, Vatican, May 11, 2014. Photo by Reuters
Matthew’s texts set out to show that the birth of Jesus fulfils the messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. Among other things, he starts his gospel with a genealogy showing that Jesus was born of the Davidic male line, which was and still is held to be a must for Jewish messiahs.

Yet after showing that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was descended from David, he undermines his own argument by saying that Jesus was not really the son of Joseph: “…before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.” (1:18). Why would Matthew do this?

It bears noting that the gospel of Matthew was actually penned many decades after the death of Matthew the Apostle by an unknown writer, who wrote in Greek. He evidently never read the original Hebrew text of Isaiah, but settled for reading the Greek translation, the Septuagint.

So, the author of Matthew may have wanted to show that Jesus’ birth also fulfilled another Old Testament prophecy. He quotes from the Book of Isaiah: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (Matthew 2:23).

The Isaiahic text is apparently not discussing any prophesy of a future Messiah: he seems to be talking of an actual child born at the time. But that is beside the point. More important is the fact that the original Hebrew text does not actually say “virgin.”

The word in Isaiah (7:14) translated as “virgin” is alma, which just means young woman, irrespective of her sexual history. The Hebrew word for virgin is betula.

What misled the anonymous Greek-speaking writer of Matthew is that the Septuagint rendered alma into the word parthenos, which could be used to mean young woman but more usually meant virgin.

Pagan beliefs

Luke also gives genealogy linking Joseph to King David (though not in the same way as Matthew does – Mathew has Jesus’ line coming from David’s son Solomon while Luke has Nathan, Mathew has Jesus’ grandfather called Jacob, while Luke has him named Heli – naturally the inconsistencies go all the way through). Then he describes how an angel comes to tell Mary that she will give birth.

Christian worshipers next to a statue of the Virgin Mary, that residents say “weeps” oil, Tarshiha, Feb. 11, 2014. Photo by AP
When she says that this cannot be since she’s a virgin – the angel tells her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.” (1:35)

Both Luke and Matthew were likely repeating an oral tradition that existed at the time they were writing, probably the end of the 1st century. This tradition may have been influenced by a prevailing notion in both pagan and Jewish societies that divine beings have semi-divine children by mating with human women.

There is any number of myths having Zeus and other gods impregnating any number of women. Genesis itself has a passage that reads: “…when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (6:4)

Not a universal doctrine

The gospels of John and Mark do not mention a virgin birth, which goes to show that the idea of the virginity of Mary was not universally held by early Christians. The fact that Mark is widely held to be the earliest of the gospels is telling. It is very unlikely that early Christians would have thought of Jesus’ family as unique in any way, since the leader of the early Church was James the Just – “James the brother of the Lord” – as his contemporary Paul calls him. (Galatians 1:19)

If you are surprised to hear that Jesus had siblings (the New Testament lists four brothers and also mentions sisters but doesn’t name them), this is because of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, which obviously conflicts with the idea that Jesus had siblings.

The doctrine of Perpetual Virginity became popular during the 4th century, when a cult of Mary was developing in the young Catholic Church. In light of this doctrine, the passages mentioning Jesus’ brothers and sisters were reinterpreted in two ways: The terms brother and sister only reflected that they were close to Jesus (“like siblings”) or that they referred to “half-siblings,” that is Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.

In light of this critical and historical reading of scripture and the facts of biology as we know them, it seems Mary was probably not a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

Segun tomado de, http://www.haaretz.com/travel-in-israel/religion-relics/.premium-1.599547 el lunes, 4 de agosto de 2014.

The mystery of why Jews fast on Tisha B’Av
The Prophet Zechariah, for one, seems to think we should be celebrating the construction of the Second Temple, not mourning the loss of the first. But that was then.
By Elon Gilad | Aug. 4, 2014 | 3:37 PM

The Prophet Zechariah, as painted by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

Tisha B’Av is a Jewish day of mourning. However, what exactly we are mourning for, and why we’re doing so on this date, the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av, is somewhat mysterious.

The general consensus these days is that we’re mourning for the destruction of both the first and second Temples, as well as a host of other travails that befell the Jewish people over the ages. But how that came to focus on this day is unknown.

What’s sure is that sometime in the summer of 587 BCE, Babylonian forces besieged Jerusalem. They eventually breached the great stone walls protecting the city, plundered the First Temple, and set it ablaze. The Jews were taken into captivity in Babylon where famously “we wept, when we remembered Zion” (Psalm 137:1).

During the 50 years the Jews stayed before being allowed to return to Jerusalem by King Cyrus of Persia in 538 BCE, four fast days were established in memory of the First Temple’s destruction. One was in the month of Av. Which day in Av, we don’t know.

It seems that unusually, these fast days were established from the “bottom up” – meaning, they began among the people, instead of being handed down from on high by religious authorities. Support for that thesis appears in the Book of Esther. When talking about the grassroots origin of Purim, the author says exactly that about the fast days: “…as they had decreed for themselves and for their seed, the matters of the fastings and their cry” (Esther 9:31).

Perhaps that non-centralization of the fasts is why, after the Jews returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the Temple, they were at odds as to whether or not to continue mourning rites, with their independence regained and the Temple rebuilt.

Should I weep or be gladdened?

The earliest reference to these four days of fasting is found in the Book of Zechariah, written during these first years of return to Israel. Chapters 7 and 8 are essentially the prophet’s answer to the Jew’s question: “Should I weep in the fifth month [Av]?” (Zechariah 7:3)

The closest thing Zechariah gives to an answer – apparently, “No, we should celebrate” – is this: “The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts” (Zechariah 8:19).

At this point, it bears mention that the fast day in Av may not have been the 9th. The above quote is the only one we have on the subject and Zechariah only gives the month, not the date.

How people marked the destruction of the First Temple (or its rebuilding) in Av during the time of the Second Temple is not clear. Some evidence indicates they fasted; other evidence indicates precisely the opposite – that they celebrated its rebuilding.

Evidence for mourning appears in Mishnah Rosh HaShanah 1:3, which tells that at the start of the month of Av, messengers would be dispatched from the Temple to inform the Jewish communities when the mourning should commence.

On the other hand, another account (Mishnah Ta’anit 4:5) that during the Second Temple period, the 9th of Av marked a sort of ancient Arbor Day, an agricultural holiday celebrating trees.

The bottom line is that we don’t know if the Second Temple Jews celebrated a feast on the 9th of Av and fasted on a completely different day in Av. Possibly Zechariah was bemoaning the insistence on mourning a temple that had already been rebuilt, and wanted Jews to stop doing that right away.

In any case, observant Jews today think Zechariah was referring to the End of Days, which is when the fast days should turn into festive days.

When the Temple was destroyed

As we said, another issue shrouded in mystery is when exactly these four fast days marking the destruction of the First Temple took place.

Today we mark the fast day on the 9th of Av, but that may be because we don’t know on what date the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. Biblical accounts of the destruction contradict one another. The Book of Kings says it happened on the “seventh day of the month” (2 Kings 25:8), while the Book of Jeremiah has it “in the tenth day of the month” (Jeremiah 52:12).

The earliest accounts dating the day of mourning for the First Temple to the ninth of Av are after the destruction of the Second Temple. We could surmise that the ninth was chosen because that was the date that the Second Temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE. But it seems, that was not so. The only contemporaneous account dating the destruction of the Second Temple is that of the Jewish historian Josephus, who says in “The Wars of the Jews” that it happened on the 10th of Av.

This dating problem did not elude the rabbis of the Mishnah: “The law would have it that we would mourn on the 10th, the day the house of our god was burned, but why on the ninth?” They then answer their own question: “On the seventh they entered it, on the eighth they circled it, on the ninth they lit the light and on the tenth it burned.”

Rabbi Jochanan remained unconvinced. “Had I lived in that generation [which decided on the date] I wouldn’t have set it to the tenth.” (Ta’anit 4:9)

False messiah fans the fire

Several generations later, during the period of the Babylonian Talmud, the date of Tisha B’Av was imbued with more disasters, to give it even more gravity. This was apparently due to some laxity in execution during later generations, as attested by an account that Yehuda HaNasi sought to abolishing the fast (Megillah 5b): “On the ninth of Av our ancestors were sentenced to not enter the land [punishment for the doubt of the 12 Spies], and the temple was destroyed for the first and second time, and Beitar was captured [thus ending the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE] and the city [of Jerusalem] was destroyed.”

It is in the Talmud that many of the traditions associated with Tisha B’Av to this day were set. Reading the Book of Lamentations, sprinkling ashes on the food you eat before the fast begins, sitting on low stools, eschewing leather shoes, and so on. During post-Talmudic times these mourning rites became more and more vigorously observed and new traditions were added, including draping the Torah scroll in black and lighting the synagogue dimly on that day, as well as the chastisement of the congregation by an elder.

Come the 17th century, the kabbalist Sabbatai Zevi announced that he was the Messiah and gained a huge following by Jews around the world. Among other things, he announced that Tisha B’Av would become a day of celebration as foreseen by Zechariah. When Jews became disillusioned with Sabbatai Zevi after his forced conversion to Islam in 1666, Tisha B’Av was taken up anew with new vigor, with extreme public mourning rites being viewed as a badge of orthodox piety.

During the reform movement in the 19th century, some groups (mostly in Germany) favored reinterpreting Tisha B’Av as a day of celebration – as it was the Temple’s destruction that turned the Jews into a people of priests destined to minister to the people of the world. Over time, this set of traditions was abandoned.

The State of Israel marks Tisha B’Av eve by closing businesses. Programming on television and radio turns somber. But in contrast to Yom Kippur, most Israeli Jews do not observe the fast.

Segun tomado de, http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.608791  el lunes, 4 de agosto de 2014.