Comments on: Hirshleifer Tanakh Group notes: 1 Sam. 15

By: Jimmy Doyle

Jimmy Doyle — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 17:59:53 +0000

There are grounds for doubting that Jesus was a pacifist. He treats a centurion with obvious respect (Matt 8:5-13); if he were a pacifist he would have to regard him as simply a professional murderer. As Elizabeth Anscombe said, it is inconceivable that Jesus should be depicted as taking the words of a brothel-keeper “I say to this girl, Go with this man, and she goeth, and to another, Come here, and she cometh” as an expression of extraordinary and unprecedented faith; but this is how he takes the very similar words of the centurion. It is true that, also in Matt, we find “Those that take the sword shall die by the sword” in the passion narrative, but all three other gospels make it clear that some of his followers were armed on the night he was arrested. It’s hard to see how Jesus could have permitted this if he was a pacifist.

By: STS

STS — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 02:20:48 +0000

I was reminded of this chapter in I Samuel, and perhaps even more so the whole of the book of Joshua, when a major Israeli politician (I seem to recall it was Shimon Perez) made some remark a year or two ago to the effect that Jewish people did not come to Palestine to harm the people already living there.
I took this politician to be perfectly sincere, and the statement to be at least approximately true of the intentions behind the 20th century founding of Israel. But the historical irony was … well … ironic
The major religions all have a troubling history of extreme sectarian violence and it is really difficult to square traditional adherence to textual authority with anything but theocracy. If Israel is genuinely Jewish, is that consistent with being tolerant of non-Jews?
Naturally the tension is not at all unique to Judaism. One might argue that we can’t hold ancient massacres against modern Israel, or hold contemporary Judaism responsible for the sort of orders the prophet Samuel issued regarding the Amalekites. Still the tension is there, and is a major motivation for my own commitment to separation of church and state.
I appreciated Anderson’s suggestion that the naming of Joshua-Jesus could be construed as a repudiation of the figure in the Book of Joshua. Perhaps optimistic, but much preferable to the alternative.

By: Richard Doolittle

Richard Doolittle — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 22:47:03 +0000

I would enjoy receiving copies of the lessons.
Thank you.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 19:39:34 +0000

The story reminded me of God’s solicitousness towards the cattle of Nineveh in the book of Jonah. Never mind the babies and children, what about the livestock? (Recall also that the cattle of Nineveh are dressed in sackcloth.)
Re: Mr. Wimberley’s comment, the explanation in Matthew for naming Mary’s baby Joshua is of course “for he will save his people from their sins.” Given the manner in which Joshua-Jesus does so, it could be taken as a veiled rebuke of Joshua, if anyone at the time had the least notion that wiping out the Canaanites was a bad thing.

By: norma

norma — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:07:52 +0000

I have waited eagerly for these study meetings, and was afraid they were no longer being done. I would very much like to receive these reports. I find them very interesting, as I do your blog. Thank you, Norma Lampson

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:44:54 +0000

It’s not just Judaism that has this problem. Why was the founder of Christianity named Jesus, i.e. Joshua, after the most bloodthirsty, indeed genocidal, of the Patriarchs? Luke 1:31 claims divine sanction for this choice:
“and lo, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and call his name Jesus”(Young’s literal translation)
The implied hope was not reflected in Jesus’ pacifist teaching, but it’s in line with Mary’s apocalyptic Magnificat in 1:46-55. Wherever the Church found the meek and submissive Mary of pious legend, it wasn’t in the New Testament.