This week we have two Torah portions (Lev. 12:1 to 15:33).
Listen here and here.
* One receives a sense of calm from studying Torah. The events of the day fade away and you step into the realm of eternity.
* Early childhood education.
* People pleasing is not a virtue. It always involves dishonesty and deceit. Do you need to tell people what they want to hear?
* Judging by the many complications of Torah laws, Jews must have been smart from the beginning. This is not a religion for the dim (on the other hand, mizrahi Jews have an average IQ of 92, Sephardim Jews of 97, while Ashkenazi Jews are about 108).
* No hidden knowledge in Torah. It’s all laid out. It’s the opposite of Scientology.
* Bicameralism in psychology.
* All ancient cultures had taboos against menstruating women (fearing that they were “the repository of demonic forces”). From a Jewish perspective, menstruation represents death (the death of an egg aka potential life) and Judaism constantly separates between life and death (Jewish priests are not allowed to visit a cemetery, can’t marry hookers aka converts to Judaism).
* I love how it is cool to care about trees, but uncool to care about whites and Western civilization (the product of white goyim). Re: Los Angeles Times: “The trees that make Southern California shady and green are dying. Fast.”
* Jacob Milgrom: “Anthropology has taught us that when a society wishes to express and preserve its basic values, it ensconces them in rituals.”
* Skin disease (tzaraath) represents death, so creepers have to be separated from the community lest they bum people out. Wiki: “The Torah identifies three manifestations of tzaraath: as an affliction of human skin, (Leviticus 13:2) of garments (Leviticus 13:47) and of houses (Leviticus 14:34).”
* Wiki: “Professor Jacob Milgrom, formerly of the University of California, Berkeley, noted that reddish substances, surrogates for blood, were among the ingredients of the purificatory rites for scale-diseased and corpse-contaminated persons, symbolizing the victory of the forces of life over death.”
* Nega’im do not render gentiles impure because they are already impure to begin with. The house and clothing of a goy is insusceptible to tzaraath as is a Torah scroll (so holy, it cannot receive impurity).
Wiki:
Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch demonstrated at length that tzaraath was not to be interpreted as a medical malady, but rather as a spiritual affliction. The verse itself indicates this, as it directs those who find themselves afflicted to seek out a Kohen (priest) and not a doctor, while the Torah specifically permits and even encourages those who are in need of medical care to seek treatment from physicians.[52]
The Torah’s emphasis is clearly on the tu’mah (טומאה, “ritual impurity “) that results from a diagnosis of tzaraath because the verses focus on the kohen’s declaration of “unclean” – וראהו הכהן וטמא אתו (“The kohen will see [the eruption] and [declare] him impure”).
The Talmud, and the majority of historic Jewish literature in general, regards tzaraath as a punishment for sin; it lists seven possible causes for tzaraath:[53]
an evil tongue (malicious gossip)
murder
a vain oath
illicit sexual intercourse
pride
theft
miserly behavior
* Judaism’s purity laws according to Wikipedia:
The Hebrew terms tumah and taharah refer to ritual “impurity and purity” under Jewish law.[1][2] The Hebrew noun tum’ah (טָמְאָה) “impurity” describes a state of ritual impurity. A person or object which contracts tumah is said to be tamei (Hebrew adjective, “ritually impure”), and thereby unsuited for certain holy activities and utilisations (kedusha in Hebrew) until undergoing predefined purification actions that usually include the elapse of a specified time-period.
The contrasting Hebrew noun taharah (טָהֳרָה) describes a state of ritual purity that qualifies the tahor (טָהוֹר; ritually pure person or object) to be used for kedusha. The most common method of achieving taharah is by the person or object being immersed in a mikveh (ritual bath). This concept is connected with ritual washing in Judaism, and both ritually impure and ritually pure states have parallels in ritual purification in other world religions.
The laws of tumah and taharah were generally followed by the Israelites, particularly during the First and Second Temple Period,[citation needed] and to a limited extent are a part of applicable halakha in modern times.
* Mishna “Zavim: (זבים “Seminal Emissions”); deals with the laws of a person who has ejaculated.” Spilt seed represents death.
Monty Python notes that every sperm is sacred:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be found.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
* Mr. Darcy: “Who knew that when the Saxon Began to Hate it would be such hilarious good fun?”
* If a priest is deformed (aka limps), he can’t serve in the temple. Judaism values aesthetics. Perhaps fatties should not serve in our synagogues?
* Feces and urine are not impure.
* John Mearsheimer: “Creating a peaceful world is surely an attractive idea, but it is not a practical one.” This seems to be the opposite of Judaism’s vision, unless you place that vision in the Messianic Age.
* An Amazon review of Jacob Milgrom’s popular Leviticus commentary:
Few modern Bible scholars have revolutionized the study of one book to the extent Jacob Milgrom has revolutionized the study of Leviticus. Milgrom’s massive three volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible series, exceeding 2500 pages, is an exhaustive and sometimes exhausting study that addresses virtually every issue raised in Leviticus. (I have also reviewed for Amazon the Anchor Bible commentary on Leviticus by Milgrom and you might want to read those reviews.)
This more modest volume, issued by Fortress Press, can best be described as a condensation of Milgrom?s Anchor Bible commentary. Milgrom eliminates almost all his discussion of the dating of the text, arcane questions of etymology, syntax and grammar, and his thorough reviews of scholarly opinions, both modern and ancient, on various issues. Instead, Milgrom’s concentrates on explaining the basics of Leviticus when viewed within the context of the ancient world.
Milgrom argues that the authors of Leviticus, which he identifies as “P” (Priestly source, chiefly Lev. 1-16) and “H” (Holiness source, chiefly Lev. 17-27), while preserving many rituals and customs that Israel shared with its neighbors, infused them with a profound theology unique to Israel, a theology founded upon a radical monotheism that banished demons from the world and posited man?s choices as the chief source of good and evil.
Readers who don’t want to shell out more than $100 for the three volume Anchor Bible commentary and wade through thousands of pages of text will find in this more modest volume most of Milgrom’s principal insights.
Milgrom explains how P transformed the ancient concept of purity and impurity so that it became part of an overall system reflecting profound values of life and death, with holiness being linked to life and impurity to death. Milgrom argues that P limited the physical causes of impurity to a mere handful all of which are connected with death. In contrast, P taught that the chief source of impurity was man?s sin, the more serious the sin the more severe the impurity it created. Man?s sin generates impurity which pollutes the Tabernacle and, if not expurgated by sincere repentance and sacrifice, will drive God?s presence from the Tabernacle. Milgrom also demonstrates how the dietary laws in Leviticus are part of an overall ethos which seeks to limit human consumption of meat and to instill in Israel an abiding respect for life, both animal and human.
Milgrom also argues that H built upon the foundation laid by P, expanding the concept of holiness to encompass not just the Tabernacle/Temple but the entire land of Israel, which according to H absorbed the impurities caused by the people’s sins. H teaches that if the people continue in their sinful ways by disobeying God, the land will vomit the people out and people will not be permitted to return from exile until they have repented and the purity of the land has been restored by the passage of time. H, moreover, transforms P by teaching that holiness is not limited to the priesthood but is attainable by all of Israel. H commands that the priests to maintain their holiness and the people to attain holiness, but the means of maintaining and attaining holiness are the same – obedience to God’s commandments.
To be precise, it is not accurate to say that according to Milgrom, H teaches that the land of Israel is holy. In fact, Milgrom argues that neither P nor H label the land as holy. However, according to Milgrom, H teaches that the land is susceptible to pollution caused by the people’s sins. Thus the people and the land share a common bond – both are susceptible to impurity and the holiness of the land depends upon the conduct of those living on it. Thus, Milgrom says, H teaches on the one hand that both the land and the people are defiled by the people’s sins and, on the other hand, the people explicitly and the land implicitly are sanctified by the people’s obedience to God’s commands. For H, the holiness of the people is a goal, not yet attained, and therefore the land is not yet holy. However, holiness for both is the goal.
I struggled considering whether to give this volume the highest rating. Overall, Milgrom’s Anchor Bible commentary on Leviticus is better, but this volume does a tremendous job of serving the needs of readers who don’t have the time or the money to purchase and study the Anchor commentary. Moreover, this shorter commentary contains several homiletic reflections by Milgrom that do not appear in his more scholarly Anchor Bible commentary. If you want a relatively inexpensive and manageable commentary on Leviticus and don’t mind missing many of the more esoteric but equally enlightening insights in the Anchor Bible commentary which have been omitted due to the constraints of this series, this shorter commentary by Milgrom is for you. Myself, I prefer my Prometheus unbound!
* Jacob Milgrom writes: “Infectious diseases and especially those to which a sexual fault is attached always inspire fears of easy contagion and bizarre fantasies of transmission by non-venereal means in public places. The removal of door knobs and instillation of swinging doors on U.S. Navy ships and the disappearance of the metal drinking cups affixed to public water fountains in the United States in the first decade of the twentieth century were the early consequences of the “discovery of syphillis” — “instantly transmitted infection.” The warning to generations of middle-class children always to interpose paper between bare bottom and public toilet seat is another trace of the once rife horror stories about the germs of syphilis being passed to the innocent by the dirty.”
* When I had CFS, many people wondered if I was contagious. My peers treated me as contagious. Most people fear being around the sick. The more terrible and mysterious the disease, the more they fear.
* Jim Crow laws were a symbol of the fear of contagion.
* There aren’t many Christian or goyish commentaries on Leviticus, but there is now one Christian scholar — Roy Gane, who studied under Jacob Milgrom. Leviticus was more important to Seventh-Day Adventists than to most other Christians (see my dad’s life).
Spectrum, Jan. 13, 2016:
Desmond Ford’s New Book Recalls Conflict Over Sanctuary Doctrine, Dismissal from Adventist Employment
Former Adventist pastor, theologian and professor Dr. Desmond Ford has released a new book in which he documents the events that led to his dismissal from denominational employment in 1980. The events in Ford’s retrospective, entitled “Seventh-day Adventism, The Investigative Judgment and the Everlasting Gospel,” are more than 35 years old, but they continue to provide insights into the ways ecclesiastical authority has been determinative for both theology and employment with the Adventist denomination.
A convert from Anglicanism to Seventh-day Adventism, Ford has had a longstanding preoccupation with the assurance of Salvation. That preoccupation motivated the release of the book, and played a crucial part in its central conceit—Ford’s critique of the Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment or Pre-Advent Judgment, often referred to simply as the Sanctuary Doctrine.
Ford saw the fear caused by the notion of a heavenly investigation into the deeds of every human being, preceding the close of probation and the Second Advent. The doctrine, Ford observed, caused many Adventists to question their standing with God, and to doubt whether they were fit to be saved. For Ford, this uncertainty was incompatible with the Gospel. For decades, Ford tried to point out the problem. Page 42 of the book describes the situation this way:
“Dr. Ford traces his concern with the sanctuary doctrine back to 1945. Since then, he has sought unsuccessfully in papers, articles and books to persuade church leaders to face up to what he regards as serious non sequiturs in the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9. From 1962 to 1966, the select General Conference Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel had given protracted attention to these problems without being able to reach a consensus with respect to them. The 1970s witnessed implementation of a policy that reserved decisions in theological matters primarily to administrators, which made it impossible to resolve a growing tension about the sanctuary through normal scholarly study and deliberation.”
The preceding paragraph reveals that, in addition to Ford’s objections to the Adventist understanding of the Investigative Judgment, he took issue with the imbalance of power between administrators and theologians, which set up bureaucrats (most of whom were not theologians by training) as the gatekeepers of Adventist doctrine, and thus of Adventist orthodoxy.
Ford had been a professor at Avondale College in Australia, but prior to the events discussed in this book, he transferred to Pacific Union College in the United States, where he served as a visiting lecturer.
In 1979, Ford’s impasse with the Adventist Church over the Sanctuary Doctrine came to a head. Ford framed the events of that October as a turning point for the church. From the book’s preface:
“October 27, 1979 was a pivotal date for Seventh-day Adventism. On that day Desmond Ford, responding to an invitation from the PUC (Pacific Union College) Forum, spoke to over 1000 people on “The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity.” Dr. Eric Syme responded, expressing his substantial agreement with Ford’s presentation. Then followed a lengthy Q&A session.”
Ford considers the events of 1979 and 1980 to be of continuing importance for the Adventist Church for two reasons:
1. Ford’s objections to the Sanctuary Doctrine and his subsequent dismissal cut to the heart of Seventh-day Adventist teaching.
2. An incorrect understanding of God’s judgment, he said, can only lead to an incorrect understanding of the Gospel.
On one level, Ford’s critique of the Sanctuary Doctrine was pragmatic and pastoral—the teaching caused people to doubt their salvation. On another level, his critique was scholarly.
The book details his objections to official the Adventist understanding of the Heavenly Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgement by means of a transcript of Ford’s October 1979 presentation.
One key issue, Ford stated, had to do with the word “cleanse.”
Unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” On the basis of that word, our pioneers linked this prophecy with Leviticus 16, but the word isn’t there. You say, “Of course it’s there.” No, it’s not there. The KJV is a mistranslation. The word translated “cleanse” there is not found in Leviticus 16. It’s a different word altogether. That’s why almost all modern translations do not use “cleanse,” and therefore, from all other translations, you are crippled as a way of getting back to Leviticus 16” (pg. 12).
* In 1999, via email, a Seventh Day Adventist Bible scholar deconstructed me and my father:
You father “knows” too much for me to tell him anything. Including about you. It will never happen.
…Knowing too much, summarizing too fast, summing up too quickly, is a weakness he has. It’s a way that you and he are terrifically alike.
…By the way, you enjoy controversy and driving people nuts way too much. Both of you. What is the blessing in “Blessed are the peacemakers.” (Jesus knew at least as much about Judaism as you do….) Part of what makes you ill at ease in the self/world dichotomy is this approach toward the outside world as the enemy to be debunked.
Hiding behind “journalism” as the reason for this cynicism just won’t do. I ain’t convinced! There are lots of “journalists” who do have the same problem with their approach, but there are lots that don’t. It’s not endemic to journalism to have to drive people nuts, to be cynical, and to print what MAY be someone’s screwup and assume it’s true until proven otherwise. The theory of the law, “Innocent until proven guilty” would help in your approach to your journalism. But of course you became this sort of journalist as a result of an already existing cynicism, not the reverse. You have charm and intelligence and good looks, and I can see that it is dangerously easy for you to mislead people about yourself–even when you know you’re doing it. Careful, this can make for a hollow feeling and dis-ease.
…Now, what your father [two Ph.Ds in Christianity] was exposed to was “readings” in the British style. Not the original materials, but readings of not-very-good European writers, whose writings couldn’t even be taken seriously (since they’re relatively ignorant of the details) in American Biblical Studies. Out of this study of generally poor secondary sources your father got the impression he was something of an expert in theology. From this weak background, with most of his questions unanswered, he launched into doing what only someone who didn’t know what he didn’t know would do: he tried to write a commentary on Daniel. It was a terrible mishmash of preterism, historicism, and futurism without any understanding of how these systems complement and clash. There was no understanding of their history, of the sameness and difference involved in them.. And much of the book was unedited quotes from other sources strung together in ways that didn’t fit at all. It became apparent to me after only a few minutes that your father didn’t have the foggiest notion of the Book of Daniel, and shouldn’t even be teaching an academy class on the subject, much less writing a book about it. That a Seventh Day Adventist publishing house published this mess, virtually unedited, and with even the Hebrew title screwed up, showed the blind leading the blind.
You write very much in the style of your father. Like him, you tie together long quotes, with rather poor segues and transitions. This is so evident in your website that I marvel that I didn’t get it sooner. And you’ve gotten the same kind of accurate and strong criticism your father got for what passes for writing. And the same kind of “this guy really didn’t take the time to know what he was talking about before he became a legend in his own mind” criticism.
