Book Review: "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years" by Israel Shahak

 Book: Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years by Israel Shahak (1994) 176 pages.

    Israel Shahak was an Israeli professor of organic chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, a Holocaust survivor, and a self-described humanist. For twenty years, he headed the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights (1970–90) and was a public critic of the policies of the government of Israel, especially its policies toward Palestinians (whether Muslim or Christian).

    This particular book was written in an attempt to explain to non-Jews how fundamental Jewish beliefs of classical and orthodox Judaism informed Israeli policy toward non-Jews ("Gentiles") within Israeli and its neighbors. As you can guess, Shahak's book paints classical and orthodox Judaism in an unflattering light, and was roundly criticized by Shahak's fellow Jews. 

    Although I'm sure that Shahak would deny any such purpose, in reading the book I was left with the impression that classical and orthodox Judaism--i.e., Rabbinical or Talmudic Judaism--is very much the anti-thesis of Christianity. In fact, I can now understand why people such as Vox Day are so opposed to the term "Judeo-Christian" because, if Shahak is to be believed, it truly is an oxymoron. In fact, Judaism seems much closer to and more compatible with Islam than to Christianity.

    Obviously, Judaism rejects Christ as a Messiah, let alone the Son of God. But rather than ignore Christ as a myth as is popular with many scholars today, or even acknowledging him as a great teacher or prophet while rejecting his divinity, as does Islam, there is an express hatred directed at Christ by Rabbinical Judaism. Shahak writes, for instance:

It must be admitted at the outset that the Talmud and the talmudic literature--quite apart from the general anti-Gentile streak that runs through them ... contains very offensive statements and precepts directed specifically against Christianity. For example, in addition to a series of scurrilous sexual allegations against Jesus, the Talmud states that his punishment in hell is to be immersed in boiling excrement--a statement not exactly calculated to endear the Talmud to devout Christians.

He further relates:

According to the Talmud, Jesus was executed by a proper rabbinical court for idolatry, inciting other Jews to idolatry, and contempt of rabbinical authority. All classical Jewish sources which mention his execution are quite happy to take responsibility for it; in the talmudic account the Romans are not even mentioned.

Other popular accounts also accuse Christ of witchcraft. 

    As would be expected, and quite contrary to their treatment of the Qur'an, the Jews have a special hatred of Christian scripture. Shahak relates: "Or one can quote the precept according to which Jews are instructed to burn, publicly if possible, any copy of the New Testament that comes into their hands." (He notes, in support, an incident in March 1980 where "hundreds of copies of the New Testament were publicly and ceremonially burnt in Jerusalem under the auspices of Yad Le'akhim, a Jewish religious organisation subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of Religions"). 

    He spends considerable time explaining how this anti-Christian attitude, which resulted in a backlash from European Christians beginning in the 13th Century, informs many Jewish teachings allowing deception, bribery, and other unethical attitudes toward Christians. One of the acts of deception, he notes, is that in response to growing criticism in Europe, the Rabbis of the time removed Talmudic references to Christians (or to Gentiles generally) with terms such as "idolator", "heathen", "Canaanite" or "Samaritan"; but that Jews understood that the terms were mere substitutions, with Rabbinical authorities even distributing handy sheets explaining what was truly meant by the terms. But, Shahak relates, "following the establishment of the State of Israel, once the rabbis felt secure, all of the offensive passages and expressions were restored without hesitation in all new editions." 

So now one can read quite freely--and Jewish children are actually taught--passages such as that which commands every Jew, whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead if it is non-Jewish.

And, in another example of both continued deception and animosity toward Christians:

In 1962, a part of the Maimonidean Code referred to above, the so-called Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with the English translation facing the Hebrew text. The latter has been restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish infidels appears in it in full: 'It is a duty to exterminate them with one's own hands.' In the English translation this is somewhat softened to: 'It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them.' But then the Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of 'infidels' who must be exterminated: 'Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoq and Baitos and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot'. 

Of course, none of the latter is set out in the English translation, nor have Jews objected to the omission.

    But there are other basic differences which are antithetical to Christianity. For instance, contrary to popular belief, Shahak observes that Rabbinical Judaism (especially in the last several hundred years) is not monotheistic. He observes that "[t]he decay of monotheism came about through the spread of Jewish mysticism (the cabbala) which developed in the 12th and 13th centuries, and by the late 16th century had won an almost complete victory in virtually all the centres of Judaism." He describes classical Judaism as representing "a process of degeneration, which is still going on; and this degeneration into a tribal collection of empty rituals and magic superstitions has very important social and political consequences."

    And, per the kabbalah, "the universe is ruled not by one god but by several deities, of various characters and influences, emanated by a dim, distant First Cause."

Omitting many details, one can summarise the system as follows. From the First Cause, first a male gold called 'Wisdom' or 'Father' and then a female goddess called 'Knowledge' or 'Mother' were emanated or born. From the marriage of these two, a pair of younger gods were born: Son, also called by many other names such as 'Small Face' or 'The Holy Blessed One'; and Daughter, also called 'Lady' (or 'Matronit', a word derived from Latin), 'Shekhinah', 'Queen', and so on. These two younger gods should be united, but their union is prevented by the machinations of Satan, who in this system is a very important and independent personage. The Creation was undertaken by the First Cause in order to allow them to unite, but because of the Fall they became more disunited than ever, and indeed Satan has managed to come very close to the divine Daughter and even to rape her (either seemingly or in fact--opinions differ on this). 

Shahak also explains that "[t]The creation of the Jewish people was undertaken in order to mend the break caused by Adam and Eve, and under Mount Sinai this was for a moment achieved: the male god Son, incarnated in Moses, was united with the goddess Shekhinah."

    Shahak also relates that, per kabbalah, the fortunes of the Jewish people is associated with the union or disunion of the divine pair. So, for instance, when Jews were driven from the Holy Land and the First Temple destroyed, it was not only a sign of the divine disunion "but also of a real 'whoring after strange gods': Daughter falls closely into the power of Satan, while Son takes various female satanic personages to his bed, instead of his proper wife."

The duty of pious Jews is to restore through their prayers and religious acts the perfect divine unity, in the form of sexual union, between the male and female deities. Thus before most ritual acts, which every devout Jew has to perform many times each day, the following cabbalistic formula is recited: 'For the sake of the [sexual] congress of the Holy Blessed One and his Shekhinah ...' 

Other prayers are also intended to promote this sexual union. 

    Additionally, according to Shahak, "[o]ther prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the cabbalists, are designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan." "Indeed," he adds, "the cabbalists believe that some of the sacrifices burnt in the Temple were intended for Satan." Thus, certain prayers or rituals carried out today can mean different things to different Jews: to one it may be a means of worshiping God, but to another it is a way to propitiate Satan.

    Shahak also explains that the classical and orthodox Jews believe that they, and only they, are truly "humans" capable of worshiping the true God. Gentiles are considered "to be, literally, limbs of Satan". While they do recognize the possibility of conversion, they believe that people that convert were "in reality 'Jewish souls' who got lost when Satan violated the Holy Lady ... in her heavenly abode."

    Nevertheless, they believe that certain peoples were incapable of being Jewish: the Mongols "and the nomads in the North, and the Blacks and the nomads in the South, and those who resemble them in our climates," because "their nature is like the nature of mute animals" and "they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey...." Of course, in English translations, in order to conceal this, the word "Blacks" is changed to Kushites, "a word which means nothing to those who have no knowledge of Hebrew[.]" 

    Shahak wonders at those Jews and rabbis that supported Martin Luther King Jr., "some of whom must have been aware of the anti-Black racist attitude which forms part of their Jewish heritage." 

Surely one is driven to the hypothesis that quite a few of Martin Luther King's rabbinical supporters were either anti-Black racists who supported him for tactical reasons of 'Jewish interest' (within to win Black support for American Jewry and for Israel's policies) or were accomplished hypocrites, to the point of schizophrenia, capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of rabid racism to a proclaimed attachment to an anti-racist struggle--and back--and back again.

Similarly, he notes that the Yiddish word Shaygets--meaning a Gentile boy or young man--is derived from a Hebrew word meaning "unclean animal; loathsome creature, abomination ... wretch ...." In Hassidism, a Jewish mystical movement, "all non-Jews are totally satanic creatures 'in whom there is absolutely nothing good'." Hence, "[i]n one of the first sections of the daily morning p[r]ayer, ever devout Jew blesses God for not making him a Gentile." And, "an Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a sin to praise them, and so on and so forth."

    As you can guess, the consequence of such teachings is a belief in Jewish supremacy. Thus, to Jews, according to Shahak, "[t]he very existence of a non-Jew is 'inessential', whereas all of creation was created solely for the sake of the Jews." In another example, Shahak relates:

One of Marx's early friends, Moses Hess, widely known and respected as one of the first socialists in Germany, subsequently revealed himself as an extreme Jewish racist, whose views about the 'pure Jewish race' published in 1858 were not unlike comparable bilge about the 'pure Aryan race'.

    It shows up in other Jewish attitudes and behaviors toward Gentiles. He notes, as an example, of these beliefs being "stepped up before Israel's invasion of Lebanon in March 1978, in order to induce military doctors and nurses to withhold medical help from 'Gentile wounded'." Shahak explains:

The famous verse 'thou shalt love they fellow as thyself' (Leviticus, 19:18) is understood by classical (and present day Orthodox) Judaism as an injunction to love one's fellow Jew, not any fellow human. 

This certainly puts the parable of the Good Samaritan in a different perspective!  Consequently, "a Jew is in general forbidden to save the life of a Gentile, because 'he is not thy fellow'." Even the word "man" (adam) is interpreted to mean "Jew" and not as men or mankind in general. Thus, "[a] Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court," and "[t]o cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all." 

    In another example, although the Talmud forbids a Jew from charging another Jew interest on a loan, "[a]ccording to a majority of talmudic authorities, it is a religious duty to take as much interest as possible on a loan made to a Gentile." Similarly, although giving alms to needy Jews is considered a religious duty, "[t]he Talmud bluntly forbids giving a gift to a Gentile," even alms. And, in yet another similar teaching, although a Jew is forbidden from deceiving another Jew, "[a]gainst a Gentile it is only forbidden to practise direct deception." A lie of omission is perfectly fine. Similar reasoning applies to fraud, and robbery. 

    Shahak also observes that per other Talmudic teachings, although a Jew cannot raise his hand to harm a Gentile, he may harm him indirectly, "for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice...." But this only applies to Gentiles with whom Jews are not at war. For enemies at war, "various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may [be killed], or even should be killed." This doctrine, Shahak alleges, has been "publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers." In short, according to Shahak, "[a]s for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must not be saved, although it is forbidden to murder them outright."

    Although Judaic law calls for the death of a married Jewish woman who has sexual intercourse with an man other than her husband, Shahak observes that the attitude toward Gentile women is much different:

The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse 'whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses' is applied to them. Whether a Gentile woman is married or not makes no difference, since as far as Jews are concerned the very concept of matrimony does not apply to Gentiles ('There is no matrimony for a heathen'). Therefore, the concept of adultery also does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather, the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality. (For the same reason, Gentiles are generally presumed not to have certain paternity.)

Shahak is quick to explain, however, that "[t]his does not imply that sexual intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman is permitted--quite the contrary. But the main punishment is inflicted on the Gentile woman; she must be executed, even if she was raped by the Jew[.]" In such case, the reasoning goes, "because he [the Jewish man] had wilful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble." The punishment for the Jewish man, however, is only a lashing. Shahak later notes that, per Talmudic law, "all Gentile women are presumed to be prostitutes." This puts Harvey Weinstein's and Jeffrey Epstein's conduct in a different perspective.

    In fact, the differences in how the Orthodox Jew interprets the Bible is so great, according to Shahak, that he claims that "the more such a person [i.e., a non-Jew or non-Orthodox Jew] reads the Bible, the less he or she knows about Orthodox Judaism." 

    Of course, there are exceptions to many of these rules to the extent that it would benefit Jews, such as not antagonizing Gentile rulers or Gentile peoples among whom Jews live. But Shahak goes into great detail explaining how these attitudes toward Gentiles proved to be very useful to non-Jewish rulers in controlling their populations; especially for enforcing and collecting taxes. Thus was born the Jewish middle-class during the Middle-Ages and Renaissance. Shahak goes so far as to argue that most massacres against Jews during those same periods were the consequence of popular revolt, the high ranking Jews being treated as minor nobility, and notes that such massacres were quite opposed by European political leaders. 

    Although Shahak does not go this far, I have the impression that he believes some blame for the Holocaust lies at the feet of the Orthodox Jews. It surely can't escape the reader's notice that much of the racist, totalitarian aspects of Nazism actually mirror those of classical and orthodox Judaism as described by Shahak. One could say that the Nazis did to the Jews what the conservative and orthodox Jews had hoped or wished to do to Christians. 

    Rather than learn from the lessons of the Holocaust, Jews seem to have doubled down. Shahak writes:

It is also of particular interest in a Jewish context, in view of the fact that since the second world war Jewish opinion has--in some cases justly, in others unjustly--condemned 'the whole world' or at least all Europe for standing by when Jews were being massacred. 

Although the Holocaust obviously resulted in retrospection by some Jews, including Shahak, as he describes in his book, the old beliefs are still prevalent among the more observant Jews.

    I have read enough from various Jewish news and commentary sites that I don't believe that Shahak is necessarily exaggerating. In fact, you can get a sense of what he says is true by watching the video linked to below:

VIDEO: "Israelis: Do you see non Jews as equal to you?"--Corey Gil-Shuster (9 min.)

    The video shows the varying attitudes of Jews toward Gentiles, and some of the answers are quite telling. In fact, most telling is one gentleman who wanted to verify whether he was giving his answers to Jews or not. 

    So what should we learn from this book? 

1. We need to keep in mind that like members of any other religion or religious sect, opinions and behaviors differ greatly. The fact that Shahak was willing to share what he did is an example that not all Jews view Gentiles as animals. In fact, notwithstanding orthodox Jewish beliefs, we must remember that they are our "neighbor". 
2. Nevertheless, enough Jews have the attitudes of which Shahak complains that it not only informs Jewish behavior toward Palestinians, but, we must assume, behavior toward other Gentile peoples. Accordingly, we need to temper our enthusiasm for Israel and remember the maxim that "nations do not have friends, they only have interests." More so than some of our long time European or Anglo allies, I believe Israel will abandon the U.S. if and when it is expeditious for them to do so.
3. I was impressed while reading this that much of the Old Testament is about God trying to get the Israelites to humble themselves before God, using losses in war, and, finally, being taken into captivity, to force them to submit to his will. Many of the attitudes Shahak criticized are apparent even in New Testament times, and yet even after the destruction of Jerusalem, we do not see the Jews, as a people, abandoning their overweening pride. The later persecution they began to suffer in the modern era did not change them. The Holocaust did not change them but seemed to have had the opposite effect--I read an article some time ago where an influential rabbi suggested that God should apologize to the Jews for the Holocaust! As Christians, we should learn from this to avoid pride; for we are saved by grace after all we can do, and not by our works alone.
4. We may need to rethink the influence and motives of Jews in our own country, especially given the long hatred of Jews for Europeans which, according to Shahak, is even greater following World War II. I'm not suggesting any sort of pogrom, of course, but to be more conscious of how our politics, academia, and entertainment may be adulterated by various groups with agendas, including Jewish writers, producers, and actors.

    I've noted before the disproportionate Jewish influence and membership in communism and the radical student groups of the 1960s and 70s. Critical theory, in all the forms it inflicts itself on our nation, arose from the Frankfurt School: socialist and communist Jewish scholars that having fled to the United States from Nazism immediately repaid us by seeking to undermine our country and our way of life.

    Outside academia, we can see the influence in other fields, such as Hollywood. For instance, I recently re-watched Indian Jones and the Last Crusade, and was rather struck by the scene where Indy needed to cross a floor of tiles etched with letters, and the only way across was to step only on those letters that spelled out the name of God. But instead of Jesus--that is, Yeshua--which is what Crusaders probably would have used, Spielberg used Jehovah. More generally, one has to wonder if the overall negative portrayal of Christians in movies is perhaps as much or more due to a Jewish bias than a general elitist dislike of the "deplorables" in "fly-over country."

 In any event, it is an interesting look at Judaism and its beliefs--probably much different than you might get from a comparable religion course or similar.