Musing About Black and White Thinking in the Abrahamic Religions

[Picaro]

But, can't such nuances be determined from context? And, since the biblical traditions are oral, maybe tonal inflections mattered that lose something when written down? Toward the 1st century A.D. many scholars had already changed over to Greek as the primary written language, with biblical Hebrew teachings of the Torah and other Judaic theology being practically a secret cult, only taught to priests in training or a few scribes.

To some degree nuances can be determined by context, but other times no. There are certain things people argue about to this day that have some serious implications and are based in how one reads the tense (present or future) in ancient Hebrew. The prophecy given to Ahaz in Isaiah 7:14 is a great example of this. It can be read as something that is currently happening and/or as something that will happen. Different Greek manuscripts from antiquity write it in both ways; some translate it as a current event and some translate it as a future event. The intention of the author cannot be determined by what is written.

Yes, the NT is written in Greek, but, as best we can tell, it was written mainly by Greek speaking Jews (i.e. Paul of Tarsus) who, despite having a language that allowed for more nuance, still thought like a Jew and related to the world in a very dualistic manner.

Well, there is John as well; both John and Paul both appear to have been taught by the Pharisees faction, with John being the earliest writer, and also the writer most concerned with the apocalyptic literature; the Pharisees were noted for their focus on this type of biblical study. They would have been trained in both the oral and written traditions.

In any case, that would indicate that at least those two would be able to translate the proper nuances from one to the other. Doesn't guarantee it of course, but makes it highly likely that they and the other Greek writers were getting it close to 'right'. But, there is the real concern that the bible wasn't intended to be read by just anybody, and study had to include being taught by a teacher who themselves went through the traditional initiation and study program. Christianity has the Sermon on the Mount and a few other public speeches for the followers to go by, so reading the book wasn't a necessity to get the basics.

bit like the talmud or zohar ? Not for the common or unschooled reader.

Yes, at least as far as OT writings go. But then, a lot of the NT refers to OT theology as well, so maybe the NT also.

 

[Picaro]

I was thinking about this today in relation to another topic, but it struck me that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have strong traditions with 'black and white thinking' that persist to the present day. This is the 'you are either for God or for evil' perspective. It's the 'we are right and you are wrong' point of view. There is no denying that these religions have a very strong 'all or nothing' element that has been pounded into followers for thousands of years in some cases. These religions don't allow much room for 'I am still trying to sort it all out' attitudes...at least not how they are practiced today and for much of history.

It occurred to me today that this may have roots in how ancient Hebrew was spoken. In ancient Hebrew, there was no specific present tense. There was past tense and future tense and present tense was the same thing as future tense. So for example in ancient Hebrew, if your wife asked if you had taken out the trash and you were carrying it out as she asked, you would not say "I am doing it now", you would say "no I haven't" because even though you were in the process of doing it, it had not yet been accomplished. It was either done or it wasn't.

The name of God, YHWH, can be looked at similarly. Usually, it is translated "I am what I am", but it also means (arguably more accurately) "I will be what I will be". So future and present tense combined resulting in one way or the other....all or nothing.Many eastern religions such as Buddhism and Taoism allow for many middle paths, but their language allowed for those nuances as well. Over time, the Tao Te Ching, for example, allows for many more translations and interpretations which preserve those nuances, while ancient Hebrew does not.

Certainly, the historical application of black and white thinking is far more complex, delving into politics, power struggles between Popes and Kings, etc, but it occurs to me that there may be some basis in how ancient Hebrew was spoken and that filtered into the religions by osmosis and a lack of freedom in translation.

Any thoughts?

yet Jesus accepted everyone. Sad what religion has done to he teachings.

Seen from a viewpoint of Jesus as a radical fundamentalist, he was attempting to have Judaism take the next step and become a catholic religion, based on Isaiah's writings. Naturally this wouldn't sit well with the established order; no genealogical restrictions determining social position and who could become teachers and priests, for one.

Jesus was a jew that wanted to teach the love of god to others. He want god to be in reach of all people, to reach the god inside of everyone. He was not trying to create catholicism, nor calvinism, etc. Jesus taught that god is everywhere and within everything.
He was not locked away in some box, that only handful ever go near. He is within reach to anyone, anywhere, at anytime, and they don't need an entry card to some private club building.

I'm using catholic as in a universal church, not as in Roman Catholic. The second definition applies most correctly to the Jewish theocratic power structure of the times; the leadership and nobility didn't want to become a catholic religion.

catholic - definition of catholic by The Free Dictionary

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: "The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found" (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: "what was of catholic rather than national interest" (J.A. Froude).

b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.