What general knowledge of Christianity do you think is important to have, both as a Jew and an American (or citizen of whatever country you come from)?

Is "cultural literacy" something that you value? What does it mean to you?

What about cultural literacy in other religions? What kind of cultural literacy do you think an average American non-Jew should have about Judaism? Islam? Buddhism? Does it go according to the majority culture; i.e. it's more important to have general knowledge about Christianity than about Jainism, unless you happen to be hanging around a lot of Jainists? Or do you hold that there is no value in/assur to learn about other cultures?


*Please, this is not the thread to express disdain/disgust/horror at other people's ignorance and insularity. I'm interested in hearing a range of opinions on this matter. Also, my question isn't how much you know, but what basic general knowledge you think is good to know, and why. If you simply find a topic fascinating, that's nice, but I want to know why you think it's important for everyone to be somewhat knowledgeable in it. (I am very, very weak in history but slowly improving...)


I think having a general overview of Christianity is important for understanding Jewish history; actually, the development of Christianity is part of Jewish history. The question is which details are important and which are not. I think it's important to know who J was and how his influence spread. Knowing how political and religious power became intertwined in the middle ages. Knowing the various splits in the church is interesting too, and also sets the stage for understanding various conflicts that later developed (or were carried over) in the New World. I'm not overly interested in the finer points of Christian theology or practice; a very broad overview is good enough for me.

Islam--basically the same as above. Particularly in this day and age it's important to know where Muslims are coming from. Who was Mohammed, why did people listen to him, how did his tradition get established, how did their power spread. Know when to call bluff when you hear/read people say what Muslims believe or that the Koran says.

Other religions... depends on what your dealings with them are. If you're dealing with a lot of people from a certain culture then I think you should acquire a little background about it. If you want to understand the background of a specific conflict you'll want to know the religions involved.

What I think the average non-Jew should know about Judaism.... well given the state of ignorance amongst Jews themselves I'm going to give non-Jews a pass for now.

In all my years at school, I never learned anything about Christianity. J was never mentioned (let alone his name); but for my own reading I wouldn't have known he started Christianity or anything else. I learned all I know about Christianity in college; I majored in history and I loved learning about it, either in a Jewish History class, or in a general history class.

I don't really understand what the BY schools are trying to shield their students from.

My BY was a little better than that... We slightly touched upon Christianity but since history was never my "thing," it didn't stick with me much.

When we had World History in 9th Grade the teacher was going to give a quiz on Greek Mythology and there was an uproar from some parents; the class was about split over the issue. What an h.com thread that would have made!

If you plan a life "shivti beveis hashem kol yemei chayay", what could be the point in learning about avodah zarah? If you work with goyim, you will likely be able to learn all you need to know during conversations with your coworkers without needing to resort to studying other religions. If you feel afraid of insulting others with your ignorance of their most basic beliefs or being yourself embarrassed by such ignorance, that might be a reason to read up.

If you are a grade school rebbe and like to make fun of other religions in front of your talmidim (is this as common as it was in my days?) then you had better be prepared with a detailed understanding of those religions so that the inquisitive student doesn't see through your childish pokes and go find out more from the source.

Except that none of the things I mention actually involve learning A"Z. Learning the history surrounding the growth and development of a particular religion (and how it affected the Jewish population at the time) isn't the same as cracking open a book of theology. Also it's not just about relating to co-workers, but about putting world events into perspective as well.

And I do really want to know what Muslims believe. Do they really want to kill me because I'm an infidel? I want to get these things straight and not be susceptible to whatever agenda someone wants to push about them. (I'm not saying the bad things people say about Muslims are false necessarily; I would just like to know enough to verify these claims for myself.)

For yeshiva rebbes to make fun of other religions is a stupid pedagogical tool. What's the point?

I believe a person should at least have an understanding of the forces behind the majority culture in which they live, as well as those cultures, major or minor, with which one will interact. In the West, this is going to mean some basic grasp of either the tenets of Christainity or at least how it shaped the emergence of European (incl. American and Australian) power from the dark ages into the modern time. Given that religion continues to play an important role in both personal and regional politics, the ability to understand what goes on in today's world requires some measure of culural literacy.



You apparently didn't read to well. Yehoshua of Nazareth never started a religion. Paul of Tarsus started it posthumously. And yes, I am aware that I used the man's proper name.

Maybe jesus never meant to start a new religion, but he did. He's credited as being the founder of Christianity, is he not?

1. He didn't start it, Paul did. Origen and Eusibius document some of the rifts between groups such as the Ebionites who refused to forsake a Torah-based lifestyle and the rest of Christianity. Furthermore, the Christian Bible itself documents the rift between the group headed by the dyspenosoi (Yaqob Hatsadiq/James the Just and relatives) and the group headed by Paul (which is the basis of post-Nicene Christianity).

2. No, he's not.

I definitely don't know enough about these details to argue them. What I meant to say was, Jews refuse to say Jesus' name, and they consider him to have founded the new religion. Christians themselves pray to Jesus as their savior. So why does he get all the credit if he didn't even do any of it?

It's very difficult to have a profound and critical understanding of Judaism 
without at least a passing knowledge of other religions, including Christianity,
Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and pre-Christian Greco-Roman paganism, since you don't have any outside points of reference.
I also fail to understand why so many people aren't intellectually curious enough to want to learn about other cultures, religions, eras, languages, etc, but well, to each their own...

The segments of the Orthodox community which refuse to say Jesus' name and who consider him to have founded a new religion apparently feel they can be figurative ostriches with their heads in the sand. Christianity, which developed from a 1st century, Jewish sect, is not going anywhere and has shaped the development of Western Civilization. People can pretend it didn't exist, but that doesn't mean it's going to implode and vanish anytime soon. Perhaps if people were better educated about other religions, there would be less fear of them. It's quite clear from the Rambam (Hil. Melachim) that Jesus wasn't the messiah, so what are certain segments of Orthodoxy worried about?



Not to mention that the Bible often makes more sense in light of comparitive religion. For example, if one understands, or at least has a basic grasp of Egyptian religion, the process leading up to yetsiath Mitsrayim and the het ha'egel have even deeper meaning.



"If you ignore it, it will go away" is one of the (mis)guiding principles in life. BTW, I like your new avatar.

Interesting topic - it touches on a lot of issues, our identities, our place in society, how we interpret the place of halachah...


When I think of cultural literacy, I think of knowing about Eleanor Roosevelt, Brahms, and Disney. Interesting how you titled the thread and that you see knowledge of Catholicism/Protestanism as a type of cultural literacy, although the paragraph immediately above seems to acknowledge that it's more than just cultural literacty but is a tool for a deeper understanding of Judaism, or at least the stresses and challenges to Judaism and that to which Judaism has had to adapt and develop and react.


Not only to understand why your co-worker doesn't celebrate birthdays or go in with the office lottery pool, but to understand why certain halachot are codified in Shulchan Aruch. Judaism didn't develop in a hermetically sealed biodome.


As a side note, we should keep in mind that just as other religions have ignorance of Judaism and Conservatives are ignorant of Orthodoxy [apparently], we should keep in bind that our "knowledge" of foreign religions and other streams of Judaism are probably equally misinformed.



[For the record, I was told by my rav (and the psak for others in different situations may vary) that it is permitted for me to study about foreign religions. I specifically asked him about going online to sites like the Catholic Encyclopedia, world religions courses, that sort of thing].

People are curious about different things. Not being curious about the specific things you're interested in doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of intellectual curiousity. Life is short; we need to choose what we're going to expend mental energy on. People have only so much free time for reading/research; they need to choose what will be most useful and beneficial for them. This thread is for making the case why one should learn at least the rudiments of history of Christianity and other religions as well.


I use the term cultural literacy deliberately, because the revelations were along the lines of "Oh, so that's what the Puritans were all about," or "So that's why they celebrate Easter." You grow up hearing certain concepts without really knowing what they mean. That's separate from learning other religions in context of Judaism.



Yes, I keep that in mind when reading a National Geographic article on, say, the Hutterites. I pretend that I'm reading an article about Crown Heights and adopt a pose of bemused interest.


Interesting. Where is the line drawn between learning other religions and learning about other religions? Secondary sources okay, primary sources not okay?




If I'm not allowed to learn Gemara, am I allowed to read about Gemara, like, say, "The Essential Talmud" by Adin Steinzaltz?




(kidding, kidding.)

Essentially, yes. Or how you're not allowed to open a Vilna Sha's, but a photocopy of a page in a workbook about kavod shabbos is fine.
The problem is that there's a Rambam that one is not permitted to study their texts. The issue then becomes how one is loyal to that Rambam while studying their texts. It's a problem, but not insurmountable. Depending whom one asks and the particular details of the situation.

Anyone keep a New Testament Bible in their house?
I do for reference purposes.
One of my kids questioned it so I asked my Rabbi who is very well known and he said it was O.K.
That was pre internet days.
Now, of course, everyone with the internet has a NT at their fingertips.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I was going to say.

Critical reading is OK, reading it as pre-approved truth not. (Basically the difference between comparative religion or sociology of religion on one hand and theology on the other).

Except that [certain demographic] believes in reading Torah critically as well, so I'm not sure exactly how they would define the difference.

As a member of [certain demographic] I suggest there doesn't need to be a qualitative difference. (Obviously there will be a quantitative difference since you'll probably spend much more time studying the religion you actually follow)

Oh rilly? Is this a prevailing view?

Did we just agree on something?

Well, it is among [certain demographic]. I don't know if what I mean by "[certain demographic]" and what you mean by "[certain demographic]" is the same demographic.

probably not. I would imagine most people on this board would say that they read a sefer with a certain veneration even if they're not going to accept every word written in there. But I guess it depends on the person and the sefer and some people indeed wouldn't differentiate between the bhadava gita (sp.) and the Zohar.

Bhagavad Gita.

I read the Zohar differently from the Bhagavad Gita and the Gemarah differently from Plato, but I have to recognize I view a lot of mussar seforim in the same light as the quatrains of Nostredamus. 

In fairness (kefira alert), I believe that a distinction can be made between a dismal view of the Zohar as opposed to a dismal view of say, Gemara.

Interesting. I view most seforim as sacred even if I don't consider them authoritative. Now, for the exact line between secular, sacred and authoritative, that's an interesting discussion in its own right.

I guess it's good to know the basics so you don't come across as an ignoramus. Like that some sects of Christianity consider Jesus and G-d to be one, while others don't view Jesus as Divine. Just some general stuff like that... If you're the type to go around disparaging other religions to make Jews feel good, then you need to go learn some more.

I do NOT think other religions should be taught in schools, I think that's a waste of time and just weird.




Other cultures are interesting and teach us something about our own culture.




I don't think it's necessary to know anything about religions or cultures, if you do and show sensitivity I think that people appreciate that.

But of course. It's in the nuances of where we draw these distinctions that make for interesting discussions.

Well, I would think there needs to be a baseline. Obviously, accepting the Bible and Gemara, but to what degree do we say that books such as the Zohar, More Nebuchim, etc should be part of that baseline? Also, how do we apply our views of these texts to the overall question of cultural literacy and/or comparative understanding?

wasn't this discussed in Gabbe's "would you take this book with you to the bathroom" thread?

On the floor of the bathroom, next to Jastrow....

Is it so terrible or surprising?

No, not really

1) as much as needed to understand Jewish history
2) historic background
3) yes
4) yes. Its helpful in understanding of current events, as well as references in literature.

This is interesting. It emphasizes the difference between studying a religion from a historical/scholarly perspective, studying its official theology and trying to understand what people actually believe. Those may differ and studying one aspect will not necessarily give you the answers to the others.

I'm fairly observant, but I was somewhat confused by the above argument. I realized I never really heard anybody being called "founder of Christianity" in church. I guess the phrase itself ("founder of Christianity") does not make sense to the insiders (who is the "founder of Judaism?"). Most Catholics would probably credit Christ, but it is not phrased like that. A “son of god” does not come on earth to "found a new religion” - he's more than that. But Paul is less. I perused the Catechism (Catholic), and it does not say that it is Paul who "founded" Christianity. The (final) establishment of the church is credited to Christ.

Anyway, I’m not saying that Shammy is wrong, for from a scholarly perspective it may make sense. But if you take this information and tell a Christian "so the founder of your religion is Paul of Tarsus" you may get a blank stare.

Please watch your quote tags. You put my name on something I did not write.

Sorry, I fixed it.

A few books that may help:

The Disputation

Faith Strengthened

Jewish and Christian Ethics

The Conciliator

WOOOOSH...

Dear 'rabbihaber',
you might find it helpful to actually read the thread, before you post what less kinder souls would call 'spam', or, as indeed I do, 'inane and simple-minded attempts at neo-Yeshivist triumphalist drivel'.
Maybe I'm the only one, but I find your posts (which assume a lack of sophistication perhaps appropriate for 'TorahBlab''s or whatever it's called usual readership ) to be insulting the intelligence of the members of this board.
Please bear this in mind whenever you're next filled with the unquenchable desire to share your 'inspirational' thoughts with a wider audience.

Hyam Maccoby has written a lot about Jesus from the Jewish angle. Revolution in Judea is probably one of his best and gives a historical perspective. While not frum himself, he was brought up in a frum household and so was not considered an apikores when writing this.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby.htm

Yay, Schiffshul.

Anyway, the degree one needs to be acquainted with this stuff depends on the degree to which one is going to live in a secular culture.
For me, I interact with non-Jews, and fairly religious ones at that, daily. So I ought to know something about what they believe because it's going to come up.
Further, it is impossible to read English literature without knowing at least the basic tenets of Christianity. I remember in 8th grade when Mr. Wooster asked about Gunga Din, if he was such a good man, why was he going to hell? One of the few non-Jews in the class had the answer. The rest of us were clueless.
From literature to philosophy and to government. We live in a state designed by Christians and/or brought up in the Christian tradition and governed by people similarly disposed. If we dont understand their fundamental world view then we'll never understand why things are how they are.
I'll add that no Jew ever became a Christian just from reading their bible, so I dont see any harm in it.

...

Refusal to pronounce his name has nothing to do with acknowledgement of him as a founder, co-founder or investor of their religion, but with the fact that in many interpretations he is considered an indepentent deity and thus an idol, whose names we shouldn't mention.



I don't think there is any fear of Christianity per se. There is an awareness of missionary policies of many branches of it, and their tendency to prey on the "weakest" amongst the Jews; that awareness is fully justified.


I don't think that what Rambam has to say on the matter is the decisive factor for someone considering accepting or not accepting J. C. as messiah. Besides, with enough casuistics I'm sure that a diligent scholar wouldn't have a very hard time making Rambam fit with this concept, r"l. Don't underestimate the power of Giluy Ponim.


Some basics of their religion are indeed addressed by the commentators.

I find disturbing the fact that the more idolatrous of the Roman emperors had a much better attitude towards the Jews then the Christian ones, Julian the Apostate as an example ...

But what does it have to do with knowledge? Do you believe that Jews who know something about Christianity will be much more likely to convert?

excellent post!

What about the issur of reading ספרים חיצוניים?

How does that square with speaking the names of other foreign deities when reading the Tanach?



You do raise a good point with the tendendcy of missionaries to prey on Jews with little to no connection to their religion or halacha. Still, don't you think that educating Jews about it is better than ignoring it?



Well, some editions of the Rambam (i.e. Temani) contain the passage where he explicitly mentions "the Nazarene" as not being messiah. I'm not sure how that could be twisted, but I'll take your word for it.

Well, in Tur YD 147:4 it's brought down from gemara Sanhedrin (63b) that the names of idols in the Torah are permitted to say. The Knesses HaGedola also adds that even names not written in the Torah are permissible to say (such as Mercury, Aphrodite, etc.) since we see they are often mentioned in Mishna/Gemara.

ETA: clarity

Gemora asks this question, more then once IIRC.


It is stated that Avraham Avinu O"H had massechet Avoza Zara that was about 70 volumes thick. Sometimes, it's necessary and sometimes, it's beneficial; there is no blanket answer. But there also has to be an official policy in place, and given that an average individual is far from being prepared to handle such matters, it makes a whole lot of sense not to allow the exposure in the first place. The worst sins are the ones commited in one's mind, and nobody can really be sure about themselves.


I heard much polemics about how much relevance does the character[s] from Talmud have with the popularly accepted version of J. C. , and it wasn't very reassuring ...

I don't know either but I was just told that Tovah Mordechai's book was banned for being too detailed about the Christian part of her life. That seems messed up to me.