Well, they're off and running again.

A simple [but not simplistic] analysis.

Who and what is a Jew?

There are two approaches -- they are not of equal value.

The first, which I will summarily dismiss, is that one is
Jewish if one says so.

The second, the normative definition for the past two
millennia, is that one is Jewish if one conforms to the
group determined self-definition.

It is the inherent right of a people/religion to define its
own criteria for membership. Individuals who do not meet
those criteria cannot cry foul or create their own parallel
movement and claim to be included in the greater whole.

According to that definition, minimally, Jewish identity is
determined by whether or not one's mother is/was Jewish,
recursively. There have been attempts recently in the
United States to include patrilineal descent as a
criterion. These are floundering and not universally
recognized.

The only other way of being a Jew is to convert to one of
the recognized branches of Judaism: Orthodoxy, Reform,
Conservatism and Reconstructionism.

Extra 'ecclesiam' [so to speak,'synagogam' would be more
accurate] non Judaeus est.

Orthodoxy does not recognize as valid any conversion other
than its own.
The Conservative Movement recognizes its own and Orthodox
conversions.
The Reform [and as far as I am aware the Reconstructionist]
Movement[s]
recognize[s] all four types of conversion.

Judaism divides the world into two groups: Jews and
Gentiles. The latter are divided into two subgroups:
Righteous Gentiles and others.

Righteous Gentiles are those who follow the Seven Noachide
Laws.

Nazarenes [if you prefer not to call them Nazarene
Christians, I prefer not to call them Nazarene Jews] are
like the B'nai Noach, that is to say they are
situated somewhere between Jews and the general run of
Gentiles, including Christians.

It is true that the Nazarene Movement arose two thousand
years ago as a sect within Judaism. However, as a result of
the events of 70 and 132-5 C.E., by
the decision of the religious authorities of that time,
reaffirmed in every succeeding generation, they have been
excluded from the body of Judaism and the Jewish People and
are considered 'minim' and 'meshumadim'.

Rabbi Markel posed an extremely important question to James
Trimm.

Since the beliefs Mr. Trimm espouses are not those which
Judaism accepts as Jewish, is Mr. Trimm [and the members of
his movement] Jewish by birth? If not, was his/their
conversion[s] sanctioned by a rabbinic court of one of the
four recognized movements within Judaism?

It will not do to have this status confirmed by a Karaite,
Samaritan or Nazarene beth din. This would take us back to
the first option I mentioned at the start of this message, a
position which historically and at the present is untenable.

If, as I suspect [I have no evidence], Mr. Trimm is not of
Jewish birth, then on the basis of his stated beliefs I can
state that: [1] he is not Jewish
[2] his beliefs deviate from Judaism in a major and
definitive manner [3] his beliefs approximate Christianity
in all but irrelevant externals.

I write this with the best of good will since I believe that
he is indeed a Righteous Gentile.

However, I do not consider him Jewish and no Jewish person
would.

His teachings are important in bringing the Noachide
principles to a public which is, at least nominally,
Christian.

However, it is both an error and a sin of major proportions
to attempt to
present these principles as Jewish to any of the following:
Jews uncertain of their own religion, b'nai anusim whose
ancestors were forcibly converted to Christianity, members
of marginalized Jewish communities and Jews by nationality
[as defined by the U.S.S.R.] of the former Soviet Union.
This is an activity which all of the leading Christian
denominations have denounced as unacceptable. He is surely
aware that so-called Messianic Judaism [there are many
labels] has been decried as proselytizing and as a
missionary attack on the Jewish religion and is endorsed by
only the theological fringe [I am not speaking numerically]
of Christianity.

That said, his readings of Hebrew Scripture, Christian
Scripture and kabbalah are part of the long tradition of the
Christian cabala, which goes back to Renaissance Humanism.
It is a worthy continuation of that tradition.

Unlike Rabbi Markel, for whom kabbalah operates within the
closed framework of halacha and the mitzvot, I am prepared
to find good wherever it exists and to incorporate it into
my beliefs, teaching and practices.

One final point, regarding the Zohar.

Rabbi Markel states the traditional Orthodox [he recognizes
no other] position, complete with a lengthy string of
haskamot [the Jewish equivalent of an imprimatur or a nihil
obstat] to the effect that the Zohar was written by Rabbi
Shimon bar Yochai in Mishnaic times and was only published
by Moses de Leon in the thirteenth century C.E.

That is a position which Jewish scholarship [academic, not
Orthodox rabbinic] does not accept. Almost all scholars
agree that there are ancient [sometimes gnostic] sources for
a great deal that is in the Zohar and that, as in the case
of the Torah and Tanach in general, this material had been
redacted numerous times during the millennium which preceded
the final version of the text written by Moses de Leon and
his circle. Many Jewish scholars [Yehuda Liebes, Joseph Dan
and Moshe Idel foremost among them] see significant
influences of Christian mysticism in the Zohar and there is
a growing body of scholarly opinion which sees parallels
with Islamic Sufism.

All of which is to say that the Zohar is a product of its
culture and time
[thirteenth century Spain, under Moslem and Christian rule,
with a strong Jewish presence].

I realize that Rabbi Markel will completely reject the three
preceding paragraphs. We have agreed to disagree. I admire
and respect his learning and erudition, entirely consistent
with that of a rabbi trained by the Lubavitch Hasidic
movement. Indeed, my spiritual mentor of the past
forty-three years was trained and ordained in the late
1940's by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory. I
recognize in Rabbi Markel's teaching what I have previously
learned. I do not, however, find the openness to other
ideas which characterizes the work of my mentor.

It is my hope that my intervention will not provoke a
wasteful discussion on this list of what is and is not
Jewish and who is and is not a Jew.

I am of the belief that no one's opinions [deot] in these
matters will shift.

This is a list devoted to the discussion of the kabbalah
from a Nazarene perspective. That is commendable and that
is why I subscribed to the list.
I subscribe to many [probably too many] lists which
correspond to the wide range of my scholarly and personal
interests, without necessarily subscribing to the tenets
inherent in any given list.

As long as the purpose of this list is to educate and not to
convert or pervert, I will gladly remain silent in the
background, offering only such observations which are
corrective or stimulative.

Following the writing of the above portion of this message
and before I had a chance to edit it, Rabbi Markel's
correspondence with Luana Fabry arrived.

I wish to make the following observations:

all of what Rabbi Markel has said about the historical Jesus
and his relationship to [Pharisaic = Rabbinic] Judaism of
his time is essentially correct and I will not quibble over
a word here or there, which may be more of a lexical problem
than a semantic one.

Ms Fabry argument that Rabbi Akiva mistakenly believed in
the messiahship of Bar Kochba but remained integrally Jewish
is -- specious.

Rabbi Akiva's beliefs define Normative Judaism. That he was
wrong on one particular does not invalidate the whole or
render him a heretic [one of the minim]. He paid the price
of his erroneous belief. At no point has anyone
Jewish, anyone within Judaism questioned his status.

However, that is not the case and has not been the case
since at least 70 C.E.
with regard to anyone espousing the belief that Jesus was
either of the two expected messiahs. That is not a belief
which can arbitrarily be tacked on to Judaism, which defines
its own tenets.

That said, I repeat my position, that if the Nazarene
Movement wishes to adhere to ALL [you can't be selective] of
the principles of the Torah and, in addition, to follow the
Christian Scriptures interpreted solely in the light of the
Tanach, then more power to it and God's blessing on that
enterprise. It simply isn't Jewish.

I am more than a little bothered by the tendency of
Messianic Jews to use a name they have invented. There is
no pedigree for Yeshu'a as the Hebrew or Aramaic name of
Jesus. Indeed, the successor to Moses, the prophet Joshua's
name is rendered Jesus in the early Greek translations of
the Torah as are all of the other occurrences of other
Joshuas in early translations into Greek
of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I believe that Jesus's name was likely Yehoshua [= God will
save] and that the name Yeshu'a [which means essentially
Saviour or Redeemer] is an invention of Christian cabalists
adding a fifth letter to the middle of the Tetragrammaton in
order to come up with a kabbalistically appropriate name
which conforms to central Christian theological teachings.

Of course, a rose is a rose by any other name.

Or, as the Americans say, stick a feather in your cap and
call it macaroni.

[That does not make Chef Boyardee an authority on kashrut.]

--
bgdobbs@...

Dr. Bryan Griffith Dobbs
350 Queen's Quay West, Suite 1602
Toronto, Ontario M5V 3A7, Canada

TELEPHONE: [416] 260-5712
FACSIMILE: [416] 345-1935 [you must telephone before
faxing]
NORTH AMERICA WIDE TOLL FREE TELEPHONE: 1-877-BGDOBBS
[1-877-243-6227]

I.C.Q. 4446557 [rarely online]

"There are two kinds of light--the glow that illuminates,
and the glare that obscures."
~~James Thurber


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
~~Albert Einstein


"Where you stand depends on where you sit."
~~R. Ploni

"Don't sit under the apple tree with anyone else but me."
~~Attributed to Eve