Form Of Judaism Research Articles

Haredi Fundamentalism in the State of Israel

Since its establishment in 1948, the State of Israel, which defines itself as Jewish-nation state, has been providing Haredi Jewry, also known as ultra-Orthodoxy, with a vast autonomy in education, enabling the development of a Jewish “Society of Learning Men.”This goes back to the Status quo regulations, which blocks the separation of state and religion in the country. In this framework, Haredi Jewry, which was nearly extinct after the Shoah, has developed into a striving and confident fundamentalist religious Jewish movement. At the same time, it has become the demographically most dynamic Jewish current. The influence of Haredi Jewry in Israel is crucial, for its leadership and its members do consider their isolationist, counter-acculturative, anti-modern moulding as the only authentic and “pure” form of Judaism, and they actively combat liberal Jewish interpretations or denominations.In this paper, a discussion about the definition of Haredism as fundamentalism will be provided. Furthermore, it will be argued that through the basic requirement of the Status quo between State and Jewish (orthodox) religion, the Haredi society’s attempt to organize itself as a cultural and communal autonomy has been highly successful also against the background of the societal restrictions of this effort given the dependant relationship that has developed between the Haredi community and general Israeli society. As illustrations for this case study, the educational autonomy, the Haredi judicial power over Jewish and non-Jewish citizens and the struggle over the Shabbat regulations will be examined.

Философия Л.П. Карсавина и мистическое учение каббалы

The article proves that the philosophical system of L.P. Karsavin has a number of concepts borrowed from Kabbalah as a basis. Karsavin describes the relationship between God and the world in accordance with the concept of tzimtzum, according to which God limited himself in a certain sphere in order to give place to created being. Karsavin's concept of evil and his idea of Adam Kadmon as the original integral, divine state of man also have Kabbalistic origins. The article expresses the conviction that the use of Kabbalistic ideas does not contradict Karsavin's statements about the Christian nature of his philosophy. By true Christianity (Orthodoxy), he means the Gnostic teaching, which was initiated by Basilides and Valentinus. Karsavin regards the tradition of Russian religious philosophy to which he belonged as an adequate and complete philosophical expression of the indicated Gnostic teaching and as an absolute form of religiosity that can unite the true, final forms of all religions, including Kabbalah, as the final form of Judaism.

Beyond the Rivers of Ethiopia: Writings on the Beta Israel (Falasha)

The global communities of Judaism have each generated distinctive bodies of writings, both for internal use (such as the works of individual religious leaders and unique liturgies for their formal worship) and as the subject of research in the social sciences and humanities. One of the most ancient such communities existed for centuries in a region not usually associated with Judaism, but with significant ties to ancient Israel in historical and religious tradition, the land of Ethiopia. In existence by the third century C.E., the people who referred to themselves as the Beta Israel (House of Israel) maintained distinct political and economic identities while continuing to practice a pre-Rabbinic form of Judaism up to the twentieth century within a society structured by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. This article will explore the diverse literature on the Beta Israel created before and since the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 covering the issue of the recognition of their identity as Jews, the efforts made by the world Jewish community to rescue them from war and violence, and the cultural and religious problems generated by their arrival in Israel.

The Development of the Matrilineal Principle in Ezra, Jubilees, and Acts

Most modern-day forms of Judaism determine a child's genealogical identity through the status of his/her mother. The shift from a patrilineal descent in the pre-exilic narratives of the Hebrew Bible to the matrilineal principle found in rabbinic literature has led to much speculation about its inception. Following the first exile, it is apparent that the status of mothers began to play a significant role in determining the national/ethnic identity of their children. This article explores three pre-Mishnaic texts which may testify to the early development of the matrilineal principle. First, it examines the expulsion narrative in Ezra 9.1–10.4, which recounts the removal of foreign women and their children, thereby apparently linking the status of children with their mothers. Second, it focuses on the Shechemite narrative in Jub. 30.1–26 and considers the incorporation of Molech language in the prohibition against intermarriage. In turn, this article proposes that the association between intermarriage and idolatry may be rooted in the presumption that Dinah's progeny would be Jewish, yet raised as idolaters. Finally, it argues that the author of Luke-Acts portrayed Timothy as Jewish (Acts 16.1–3) in light of his mother's status and thus was required to undergo circumcision.

Rescaling the Margin and the Center in Early Judaism: R. G. Kratz’s Historical and Biblical Israel

Summary In Historical and Biblical Israel, Reinhard Kratz attempts to review the entire history of Israel and Judah (from around 1200 BCE to 135 CE) arguing that for most of this period, the form of Judaism known to us from the Hebrew Bible and parabiblical literature was a minority movement located among elite scribes separated from the cult and the state. He makes this argument in part by reviewing six Jewish archives from the Second Temple Period. While lingering questions remain regarding Kratz’s methodology and the identities of these scribes, Kratz’s rescaling of the margin and the center in Judaism during this period potentially has broad implications for future studies in the field.

The Origins and Religious Practices and Identities of the Honen Dalim Jewish Community in Mozambique

All world religions are trans-local and transcultural and have been long before or after the thalassocracy of colonial empires took shape and moulded ethnic-religious affiliations, and Judaism is no exception. This paper is focused on the religious identities and practices of the Jews in Maputo, their perceptions of belonging and constraints of integration. It relies on an inter-subjective multi-situated ethnography and tries to reason on the ways Judaism, with its unique message, meant to be spread to all peoples and claiming its own truth and forms of allegiance and identification, assumes a new significance in complex contexts like Mozambique demanding negotiations between differently empowered agents in the present in order to achieve a constructive harmonization between the global and the local forms of Judaism.

MODERN ORTHODOXY’S ANCIENT PAST

The movement known as Modern Orthodox Judaism is often distinguished from “ultra-Orthodoxy” (or Haredi Judaism) in terms of openness. While adherents of the latter form of Judaism typically live together in isolated communities and seek to seal themselves off from secular books and learning (and, in our own age, such potentially malign influences as television, movies, and the internet), Modern Orthodox Jews are generally characterized by a more open attitude toward such things, and toward outsiders and outside ideas in general. The present article seeks to argue that the tendencies represented by these two movements are in fact dyed in the wool—that, from the very beginning, Judaism has endorsed and incorporated both isolationism and openness. This contention is illustrated with examples from the Hebrew Bible itself as well as from the extensive literature of the Second Temple period.

Blurring the Boundaries: American Messianic Jews and Gentiles

Messianic Judaism is usually equated with Jews for Jesus, an overtly missionizing form of ethnically Jewish Evangelical Christianity that was born in the American counter-culture revolution of the 1970s. The ensuing and evolving hybrid blend of Judaism and Christianity that it birthed has evoked strong objections from both the American Jewish and mainline Christian communities. What begs an explanation, though, is how a Gentile Protestant missionary project to convert the Jews has become an ethnically Jewish movement to create community, continuity, and perhaps a new form of Judaism. This paper explores the way in which Messianic Jews have progressively exploited the space between two historically competitive socio-religious cultures in order to create an identity of their own in the American religious landscape. It also introduces Messianic Israelites, non-Jewish but sympathetic believers who are struggling with the implications of an ethnically divided church where Jews are the categorically privileged members.

Eastern European Karaite Attitudes towards Modern Science

In the early modern period there were small but flourishing Karaite communities in the Crimea, Volhynia, Galicia, and Lithuania. In general, these Karaites did not adopt modern science, preferring a Maimonidean Aristotelianism they had inherited from medieval Byzantine Karaism. A good example of a Karaite intellectual who rejected modern science although he was familiar with it is the most prominent Karaite of the eighteenth century, Simḥah Isaac Lutski, whose two dozen books are steeped in pre-modern scientific assumptions. One Karaite who may have adopted modern science was Zeraḥ ben Nathan of Troki, the correspondent of Yashar of Candia, but if he did, he was an exception. Karaite dismissal of modern science may be tied to the late date at which the Karaites adopted Aristotelianism in the Middle Ages, the influence of the surrounding society, and the utility of the older scientific beliefs for theological purposes. Since the Karaites' main priority was the survival of their form of Judaism, they had neither the means nor interest in being pioneers of scientific discovery.

Prophets and Prophecy in the Qumran Community

It has long been axiomatic in the study of postbiblical Judaism that prophecy had become a dormant institution. For scholars studying Judaism in its many ancient manifestations, prophecy was a phenomenon closely related to the heritage of biblical Israel. It disappeared as biblical Israel gave way to Judaism in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile. This scholarly assumption has found support in several texts from ancient Judaism that indeed espouse such a position. In recent years, the dominance of this consensus has begun to wither away as scholars have become both more fully aware of the diverse forms of Judaism in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods and more sensitive to the multiple modes of religious piety in ancient Judaism. In this article, I would like to extend the contours of this conversation by mapping out some methodological rubrics for the study of prophecy in ancient Judaism and discuss one context for the application of this methodology—the Qumran community.

Yosef H. Yerushalmi's Zakhor— Some Observations

I: FAITH OF THE FALLEN JEWSTHE FOLLOWING REMARKS represent some amateurish reflections concerning some of observations and assumptions found m Yosef H. Yerushalmi's Zakbor. They concern only quite a small part of this rich and thoughtful book, especially initial pages and its final part. In this framework only two topics m book will be addressed: assumption that history is of fallen Jews, and then stark distinction that Yerushalmi claims exists between premodern traditional Judaism and modern Jews' inclination toward history. Consequently, these forms of Judaism may hardly communicate. An attempt will be made to exemplify complexity of relationship between two forms of Judaism.The in history by fallen, an expression that reflects Yerushalmi's ironic understanding of modern interest in history,1 itself has a small history. According to a certain testimony, Gershom Scholem once remarked that in his classes at Hebrew University he taught reason but history.2 His shift from earlier reliance on paramount Knlightenment value-reason-to historical modernism is, to follow Reinhold Niebuhr's diagnosis, not so much confidence m reason as in history. The conception of a redemptive history informs most diverse forms of modern culture.3 In lieu of image of divine redeemer, it is now history, in its Hegelian form, that offers redemptive experience. Faith m history, or in historical research, dislocated, at least to a certain extent, traditional m a personal deity and worked with assumption that meaning or, according to another formulations, identities are hidden m or dramatically shaped by events that constitute history of a nation or a person. For a skeptical observer, however, two forms of are based on strong though rarely explicated hypotheses, which can hardly be proven. From this point of view, they are equal.How and why did this new faith emerge in Judaism? The new status attained by Jewish history in general economy of modern Judaism represents a major jump; it succeeded in establishing itself as a main, if dominant, dimension of identity for many modern Jews. This is part of a profound process of self-definition emerging m rapidly changing circumstances, in which recent history of Jews has been dramatically accelerated.4 The more dramatic changes are well known: Holocaust, shift from largest concentration of Jews in Europe to Asia and North America, establishment of state of Israel and massive emigration that liquidated whole communities (some of which existed for millennia), and emergence of American center of Judaism-in a word, new forms of struggle for personal, national, and cultural survival. These struggles were coupled with complex attempts at redefinition, Zionist, and more recent trends, mainly American, to search for an identity that does depend on earlier views of Diaspora or on a territorial solution of exilic condition. Such dramatic turns are unknown even in long and tortuous Jewish history prior and represent unparalleled accelerations of events. They were major ruptures that occasioned a search for antecedents, and thus protagonists of these events turned to history for examples. This turn is, psychologically speaking, a natural one. People try, especially in cases of dramatic changes and crises, to situate themselves in a wider framework m order to understand their personal or communal vicissitudes, some of which are quite unexpected. According to such a view, history as an academic profession is essential, and resort to examples from past reflects crises or turning points, related to occasional moments of self-understanding, though imposed mainly by external forces.Less dramatic, though still very important from point of view of ascent of history, and of what I call the historical Jew, is another development, characteristic of only a small part of Jewish communities, mainly in Central and Western Kurope: a gradual opening of some Jews and Christians toward more religiously neutral forms of society, as part of a more comprehensive process of secularization. …

James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part I)

James the Just, the brother of Jesus, is known from the New Testament as the chief apostle of the Torah-obedient Christians. Up to the last quarter of the twentieth century, Jewish Christianity was regarded as an unimportant branch of the early Christian movement. Correspondingly, there was remarkably little interest in James. However, in the past two decades, while early Christianity has been studied as a form of Judaism, the literature on James has grown considerably. Now some scholars tend to assume that James was a loyal follower of his brother right from the beginning, and that his leadership in the church was stronger than traditionally has been assumed. Fresh studies on Acts 15 and Galatians 2 have opened new questions about the Christian Judaism of James and social formation of the community which he led. Part II of this article, to be published in a later issue of Currents, will treat the rest of the James tradition—James's ritual purity, martyrdom and succession, and his role in the Gnostic writings and later Christian evidence. It will conclude with reflections concerning James and earliest Jewish-Christian theology.

Can Adam and Eve Reconcile?: Gender and Sexuality in a New Jewish Religious Movement

In the late 1960s a new Jewish religious movement challenged the current conventional assumptions on the relationship between Judaism and the sexual revolution, as well as the women's movement. The neo-hasids were members of the counterculture who became observant Jews and sought inspiration in Hasidic forms of Jewish spirituality. While to many the hippie culture seemed far removed from an observant form of Judaism, to the neo-hasids such a hybrid seemed possible and even desirable. Calling their center the House of Love and Prayer, the group negotiated between Jewish tradition and hippie culture in an attempt to create a new Jewish environment. A major challenge for the group was accommodating hippie modes of sexuality with Jewish laws governing personal and matrimonial behavior. The group interpreted Jewish laws dictating gender roles and sexual behavior in light of the new expectations of female members, as well as the new norms in sexual conduct promoted by the counterculture and the emerging women's movement. Likewise, the neo-hasids gave new meanings and forms to Jewish rites, reinterpreting them in light of their new understanding of the relationship between the sexes. The compromise the group cut in the realm of sexuality and gender has become the de facto attitude of turnof-the-twenty-first-century traditionalist Jews and has permitted thousands of young women and men to become "returnees to tradition" and join the ranks of observant Jewish communities.

The Middle Ages in the History of Toleration

24 Historically Speaking · November 2003 The Middle Ages in the History of Toleration Glenn W. Olsen Toleratio is an ancient word which has undergone many permutations. Its Latin meaning as found in Cicero centered on the idea of endurance in the sense of bearing or tolerating something. This primary association oftoleration with long-suffering continued through the Middle Ages. But when modern historians have taken up theMiddle Ages inwriting the history of toleration they commonly have begun with a different understanding. In Anglo-American thoughtthe term has been shaped by a series of thinkers from Locke through Rawlswho have abandoned the definition oftoleration as a grim but necessary virtue in favor of one that encourages and celebrates difference and diversity. Just as the history ofscience has often been written as a struggle ofreason against the authority ofbenighted tradition, the history of toleration has been written as a battle between DarkAge oppression and EnUghtenment freedom . This all too common understanding ofthe history oftoleration ignores the fact that aU societies, past and present, have had to confront fundamental questions of group identity. Consequendy, the history oftoleration has no beginning. The story as told by historians, however, usuaUybeginswith Constantine and Augustine , with a few nods given to the earlier Roman situation. This perhaps obscures the importance of Judaism as a religion of exclusivity in setting the terms of later debate for European society. TheJews saw themselves as a chosen and separated people . Theverynotion oflawinJudaism specified rules of Ufe pleasing to God and different from those foUowed by gentiles. The idea of purity and of being set apart was continuously stressed by the Hebrew prophets. Any form ofJudaism that took the idea ofpurity seriouslywas necessarily committed to some form ofintolerance and exclusion; hence the Talmudic prohibition against "oversociability with gentiles."1 Like Christians and MusUms, Jews had to play offinjunctions to provide hospitality against injunctions to be a people set apart. Of course, as with all religions there were manyforms and degrees ofJewish practice , butwhere puritywas a concern, an outsider living within aJewish community was problematic. As Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), perhaps the greatest medieval Jewish thinker, declared, shouldJews obtain power in the Holy Land, "it [would be] forbidden to tolerate idolaters in our midst."2 A shared life was not possible without boundaries. It was the same for Islam. The Qur'an (5:51) states: "BeUevers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They Historians have only started to write history with a dramatic rather than a narrativeform, history in which goodandevilprosper side by side indefintely . . . are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shaU become one of their number."3 Despite the fact thatJews, Christians, and Muslims saw themselves in some respects as peoples set apart, each faith stressed the importance ofthe unique relationship between the individual and God. God declared to the House ofIsrael through Amos thatHe is to be sought not in sanctuaries which are to be destroyed, butin Himself (5:4-5), thatjustice mightflow(5:21-23). Implicidy, whatever the communal context, the individual's response to God involved choice. Christianityonlyincreased the sense ofthe individual's need to speak for himself in God's presence. Augustine's older contemporary Athanasius (he who stood contra mundum and knewintimatelywhatitwas to sufferpersecution) wrote ofhis certitude that a person confidentofwhathe beUevedwould not force it on the unwilling: "For the truth is not preached with swords or with darts, nor by means ofsoldiers; but by persuasion and counsel."4 When in the 9th century Alcuin condemned Charlemagne's conversion of the Saxons bythe sword, he expressed the heart of Athanasius's point. Indeed, medieval canon law and theologyforbade forced conversion .5 Ofcourse, a liberal notion offreedom , conceived ofas ideally fostering "selfmade men" undetermined by history or society, did notthen exist. Whenthe lawyers said baptism must be free, they did nothave in mind raisingchildren free from reUgion, only to make a choice as adults. Forcing Jews to attend Christian sermons on the truth of Christianitywas within bounds. Arather siUybookon this subject notwithstanding (Elaine Pagels's Adam, Eve, and the Serpent), Augustine 's age was not burdened with a Uberai understandingoffree wiU and understood aU the ways in which no person can...

From Institutional Decay to Primary Day: American Orthodox Jewry Since World War II

A number of works on American Jewry written during the early second-half of the twentieth century began with the contrast between the very pessimistic evaluations about the state of American Judaism at the end of the nineteenth century and the authors' more optimistic prognoses at mid-twentieth century.1 An even starker contrast can be made between the state of American Orthodox Jewry at the time of World War II and at the turn of the twenty-first century. The New York area has always been home to the majority of Orthodox Jews in the United States. According to the 2001 National Jewish Population Survey, 73 percent of those who identify as Orthodox Jews live in the Middle Atlantic states, i.e., New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. In the 1920s and 1930s, the overwhelming majority were in New York City proper, and as a result of immigration from Eastern Europe between 1881 and 1923-1926 the period was the "heyday of American Orthodoxy."2 The sense of elation and self-confidence dissipated rather quickly. Indeed, as Jeffrey Gurock's detailed analysis demonstrates, the first half of the twentieth century was the "era of non-observance" for American Orthodoxy,3 and Orthodoxy was increasingly viewed as doomed in American society. As Jenna Joselit put it, By the 1940s the English-speaking Orthodox rabbinate had suffered somewhat of a reversal and was forced to take stock of its future. Now muted, its characteristic buoyancy and optimism was succeeded by a barely disguised sense of thwarted expectations, especially pronounced among the second and third generation of RIETS [Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, Yeshiva University] students, as the interwar years gave way to wartime and the fifties. To the modernized Orthodox Jews, once confident that their form of Judaism would become the dominant religious expression of second-generation Americanized Jews, it now seemed as if a true modernized [End Page 405] Orthodoxy could be found only in isolated instances, in "pockets," and that the anticipated orthodoxization of middle-class American Jewry would not materialize. "A lost cause," reflected a RIETS graduate of 1942, "Orthodoxy was not going anywhere."4 One of the problems was that when immigration was feasible, the most traditional and Jewishly-educated of Eastern European Orthodox Jewry, and especially its rabbinic-intellectual elite, were the most resistant to migration to the United States for several reasons. As a rule, the more traditionally religious are the most resistant to geographic mobility, in part perhaps because of its negative consequences on religious participation.5 Eastern European Orthodox Jewry was further discouraged from migrating to the United States because of negative reports about religious life there. For example, New York's Rabbi Moses Weinberger (1854-1940), who had immigrated from Hungary, wrote a sharply critical portrait of Judaism in New York in the 1880s.6 He viewed American society as totally materialistic, and he bemoaned the low levels of Jewish education and observance of dietary rituals in the country. His book was in large measure a warning to his fellows in Eastern Europe that the United States was a spiritual threat to religiously traditional Jews. In the early 1890s, Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen (1838-1933) of Radun, Belarus, one of the most revered rabbinic authorities of his generation, who was widely known by the title of one of his works, Hafetz Hayyim, published his own warning to Eastern European Jewry about the dangers of immigrating to America. In the conclusion to Nidhe Yisrael (The Dispersed of Israel), which is a work that clarifies some of the basics of halacha (traditional religious law) for those who were in "distant countries," especially America, the author warned of the risks of leaving Eastern Europe, and asserted that the economic opportunities [End Page 406] were not worth the price of losing one's Judaism or that of one's children.7 Several years later, in...

Paul Between Jews and Gentiles in Corinth

In 1 Corinthians, Paul advised Christians that they should not be polytheists (idolaters) and that they must confine sex to marriage. He thus took a normal Jewish stance toward Graeco-Roman culture. Yet he did not seek to make Gentile Christianity merely one form of Judaism, for he elsewhere vigorously opposed Jewish principles. The modern sociological study of religion allows us to realize that Paul was engaging in boundary definition for nascent Christianity. In this boundary definition he was, unlike other wings of early Christianity, successful.

Paul Among Diaspora Jews: Anomaly or Apostate?

Since Paul spent most of his Christian life in the Diaspora, it makes sense to compare his mutation of the Jewish tradition with the socio-cultural stances of other Diaspora Jews. To this end, the concept of 'Hellenization' needs to be broken down, here into three categories: assimilation, acculturation and accommodation. After placing some other Diaspora Jews on each spectrum, Paul's theology and social practice are examined. He emerges as one quite highly assimilated, but comparatively low in acculturation and accommodation. Anomalously, he deracinates a culturally conserva tive form of Judaism for the sake of his largely Gentile churches. But is he also an apostate? The term is, in fact, not an objective category but a label which can be differentially applied by insiders. Thus, study of Paul's theology and self-descrip tions matter less in social terms than his treatment at the hands of his fellow Jews. Jewish hostility and synagogue beatings probably indicate that Paul was consistently repudiated as an 'apostate', despite his continuing loyalties to the Jewish people.

Les Samaritains: Histoire d'Une Légende (review)

Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 212 Reviews because of its attention to sources (especially Samuel-Kings), the use of rabbinic and mediaeval Jewish interpretation and her mastery of the Hebrew text (rather than an English translation). This commentary is an indispensable tool for the study of the Book of Chronicles. William M. Schniedewind University of Cali/ornia-Los Angeles Los Angeles. CA 90095-1511 LES SAMARITAINS: HISTOIRE D'UNE LEGENDE. By JeanDaniel Macchi. Le Monde de la Bible 30. pp. 191. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1994. Paper, SF 35.00. In the last three decades a great amount has been published about the origin of the Samaritans and their religious traditions. It is now clear that the "received" understanding of the biblical account in 2 Kings 17 must be seen as tendentious and that the roots of Samaritanism cannot lie in the time after the fall of Samaria at the hands of the Assyrians in the eighth century B.C.E. Macchi's book, whose second subtitle is "Israel and the Province of Samaria," is a worthy addition to the recent literature on the subject. It presents a detailed and focused analysis of the political, social and religious background of Samaria and the bearing it has on the problems of the origin and character of the religion of the Samaritans. Drawing together the major primary and secondary sources on the subject, Macchi shows not only that the text of the wirkungsgeschichtlich all-important passage 2 Kings 17 cannot reflect the actual events which it purports to describe, but also that the developments in IsraeVSamaria in no way support the image of Samaritanism as a semi-pagan, syncretistic religion. In the first chapter Macchi briefly presents the Samaritans and their history. He describes Samaritanism as a different form of Judaism (un autre Judai'sme) because of the many similarities between the two groups. What distinguishes them from each other is their disparate visions of the history of Israel. After outlining the main traits of the Samaritans' view of that history as it is expressed in their chronicles, he examines the reliability of these works and rightly concludes that they cannot form the basis of a historical inquiry. The historical origin of the Samaritans must be sought in a much later time than either Judaism or Samaritanism claims. With other modem au- Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 213 Reviews thors, Macchi places it in the Hasmonean period. He correctly emphasizes that talk of a "Samaritan schism" even for that later period is out of place. In chapter two Macchi presents his detailed analysis of 2 Kings 17. As others before him have done, he shows that the text as it stands now is the result of a long literary development. Macchi distinguishes three main phases: vss. 1-23 go back to the deuteronomistic school of the exilic period; the polemics in vss. 24-33, 41 were added in the post-exilic period; and fmally, vss. 34-40 reflect the more open attitude of the redactors of the books of Chronicles which are to be dated in the period from the end of the Persian rule to the Hellenistic era. A great part of 2 Kings 17 reflects the polemics of returned Judean exiles against the inhabitants that they encountered in the country. The pericope cannot be construed as a correct depiction either of the origins of the Samaritans or of the actual situation in the Assyrian province of Samaria after 722 B.C.E. Chapter three is the longest chapter. It describes the events that led to the disappearance of the kingdom of Israel as an independent entity, the practice of deportations in the neo-Assyrian empire, and the socio-political organization in the Assyrian provinces. Macchi calculates that of several hundred thousand inhabitants of Israel, a few thousand were deported, that is, probably less than ten percent of the total popUlation. Because the deported were chosen from among the intelligentsia, the political structure of the province was destabilized. But despite the deportations and the settlement of foreigners in Samaria by the Assyrians, the ethnic composition of the popUlation was not fundamentally changed. The final chapter gives a brief description of the religion of...

The Ethiopian Jewish Experience as Blacks in Israel

Over a 15-year period beginning in the mid-1970s, over 40,000 Ethiopian Jews emigrated from Africa and resettled in Israel. The ingathering of Black Jews to Israel is one of the most unique phenomena of modem day Black history for two reasons; first, the Jews of Ethiopia are the only group of Africans practicing Judaism and second, they are the only group of Africans who have migrated to a predominately White society for religious reasons. The religious history of Ethiopian Jews traces its beginning back over 2,000 years to the migration of Jews from Egypt during biblical times. Ethiopian Jews believe themselves to be the remnant of the lost tribe of Dan, one of the 10 tribes of Israel captured by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., which later vanished into history (Safran, 1987). Some believe themselves to be the descendants of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (Kessler, 1985). No one is really sure of their origin; however, they lived in the mountains of Ethiopia, isolated from the Jewish community at large, for over 2,000 years, practicing a traditional form of Judaism (Safran, 1987). When Ethiopian Jews had their first encounter with Europeans, they were surprised to find that there were White Jews, as they believed themselves to be the only Jewish people in the world (Waldman, 1985). Unlike other Jewish groups, Ethiopians found it difficult to gain recognition for the purpose of returning to Israel until 1973, when Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel Ovadia Yosef officially declared them bona fide members of the Jewish community and thus eligible to return to Israel as citizens under the Law of Return (Goldberg & Kirschenbaum, 1989). Having suffered anti-

Prenatal testing for Tay-Sachs disease in the light of Jewish views regarding abortion.

Tay‐Sachs is a fatal genetic ailment preponderant among Jews. Modern medical techniques can detect carriers of the disease as well as identify affected fetuses, permitting the option of abortion. Abortion, however, is more than a simple medical procedure. It also has ethical and religious implications and these have a long history of discussion within Jewish tradition. While all forms of Judaism permit therapeutic abortion to save a mother's life, Orthodox Judaism is less likely to approve abortion in a case when Tay‐Sachs disease has been diagnosed than are the Conservative and Reform branches of Judaism, which would freely permit it. This Orthodox strictness also has implications concerning who should be included in Tay‐Sachs screening programs; the Orthodox movement believing these should be limited to those who are as yet unmarried. This article discusses current medical approaches to Tay‐Sachs disease and their implications in light of views regarding abortion held by Orthodox, Conservative, and Refo...