The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[paramount]

This is what is known by Bahais as a "pilgrims note", the equivalent of a hadith in Islam. It is somebody's recollections of what one of the central figures of the Bahai Faith said and did. Such recollections are not regarded as Bahai scripture and cannot be relied on to represent "the Bahai view" on anything. They do however have some value as historical sources, depending entirely on the reliability of the witness and how secure the chain of transmission is. Many are quite fantastical and in some cases they are interpolated or fictional. One can also compare the recollections of different people to the same event. Even if one is sure that Shoghi Effendi said X, however, it does not follow that X is Bahai teachings, for it misses the essential ingredient: when Shoghi Effendi said X, did he mean that as authentic Bahai teachings? If he did, he would write it, and the written version would be the authenticated one.

Personal experience tells me that the "pilgrims note" issue is just a lame excuse to hide the true face of Baha'i figures. Poke around in Baha'i websites and you will find hundreds of quotes and stories from so called "pilgrims notes" that Baha'is use in their proselytizing sessions. But the moment you find something insane in these "pilgrims notes" that are credible eyewitness accounts of what Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha did, Baha'is will tell you these accounts are not scripture and have no significance for Baha'is. And by the way, most Baha'i scripture is locked up in the Baha'i archives in Israel where no one has access to. What we have access to from Baha'i scripture are mostly cherry picked quotes translated to English with most of the problematic stuff left out.

[robrecht]

I was unable to find a reference that provided sufficient clarification of the case. The best I could do was state it was my 'understanding,' and I still have not been able to find a source with a specific clarification. As with all dialogues I am perfectly willing to be corrected based on reliable sources, and continue the dialogue.

Well, this is much better than your previous attempt at flat-out denial. I am glad I was able to refresh your memory. Maybe if Sen sticks around he will be able to clarify for you (and all of us) at least his side of the story. I wonder if you will be able to accept his side of the story rather than that of the Universal House of Justice. As I recall, they did not name Sen by name, 'though everyone seemed to know they were speaking of him, so perhaps you will use this as an 'out'.

[robrecht]

I do not know the languages, but I will assume the translation is accurate. Do you understand Arabic or Farsi sufficient to understand the translation?

I recognize a lot of Arabic words because of the cognate Semitic languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. For example, the Baha'i words for 'sacred scripture' (Kitáb-i-Aqdas) are the same as in Hebrew and Aramaic: כתבי הקדש, from the roots כתב, ktv, to write, and קדש, qdsh, holy.

There are forms of the verb that can possibly be reflexive (to curse onself), but the English translation suggests a simple passive, which is to be cursed by another, sometimes understood as a theological passive, ie, cursed by God.

ac·curs·ed
əˈkərst,əˈkərsid

adjective

1. literary
   under a curse.
   "the Angel of Death walks this accursed house"
   synonyms: cursed, damned, doomed, condemned, ill-fated, ill-omened, jinxed
   "he and his line are accursed"
   antonyms: blessed
   
   
2. informal dated
   used to express strong dislike of or anger toward someone or something.
   "those accursed books!"
   synonyms: hateful, detestable, loathsome, foul, abominable, damnable,
   odious, obnoxious, despicable, horrible, horrid, ghastly, awful, dreadful, terrible
   antonyms: pleasant

Origin, Middle English: past participle of obsolete accurse, from a- (expressing intensity) + curse.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C....0.6FbMc0z-kIA

[Darth Executor]

Is that why you believe the Jews were accursed? That sounds rather anti-Semitic to me. Cursed? Seriously? That seems like very strong negative language for the Bahá’u’lláh.

This is some mighty fine trolling son. I approve.

[Sen McGlinn]

Do you mean only the first is regarded as sacred Baha'i scripture, but the others are still genuine quotes? Or that the latter quotes are inauthentic in some way? Or something else perhaps?

There are "rules of evidence" that define what Bahai scripture is (canon), and there are text-critical questions about the transmission of all texts, and translation issues. As for the canon, the Bahai Writings are defined as the written works of Baha'u'llah (and in a somewhat different sense, those of the Bab), and of Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi for which an authenticated original is available, plus, those texts that originate orally, but where Baha'u'llah or Abdu'l-Baha have checked and approved the notes. Shoghi Effendi could have certified the reports made of conversations with him, but he consistently refused to do so.

These canonical works are not all of equal rank: the words of Baha'u'llah are the creative word, while Abdu'l-Baha's expositions (which can be very free in bring in biblical or quranic or scientific material), are an authoritative guide to the meaning of the creative word, as Abdu'l-Baha himself embodies that meaning. He is "the Exemplar." Shoghi Effendi is the authorised interpreter in a narrower, textual sense.

I will pass over text criticism, except to note that for anyone studying NT source criticism and early church, a study of the early Bahai community could be very illuminating. You can see how texts are transmitted and corrupted, and restored or discarded, how the ethos of the networks that transmit a text influence the way it is read, and so forth.

Then there are translations; naturally they vary in quality, and individual translators have their foibles. And then the editors of entire texts, and of compilations. Some editors corrupt a text, adding their own ideas into it. Most compilation editors and secondary editors are not aware of the authenticity issues and therefore mix, or quote, authentic and inauthentic texts.

As I recall, your sources were The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, and Foundations of World Unity. The first of these is an edited and corrupted version of what Bahai call "pilgrims' notes." Abdu'l-Baha spoke in Persian or Arabic, an interpreter gave an English or French interpretation, people made notes in longhand or shorthand, the notes were worked up into running text, and published in journals such as Star of the West, or circulated in typescript. Then an editor, in this case Howard McNutt, collected the various reports and worked them up again, raising the literary level and inserting his own ideas, which are sometimes directly opposed to those of Abdu'l-Baha.

Much the same applies to two other volumes of talks of Abdu'l-Baha: Abdu'l-Baha in London and Paris Talks.

However, when Abdu'l-Baha spoke in Persian, notes were often taken in Persian, which he checked and corrected before allowing them to be released. These are therefore canonical. They were published in Bahai Journals, and have been collected in a 3-volume set known as Khatabaat, or Khetabaat (talks) of Abdu'l-Baha. The first volume of the set bears Abdu'l-Baha's imprimatur. I have begun to translate these in a blog, Abdu'l-Baha Speaks
https://abdulbahatalks.wordpress.com/
These translations are my first try, which others will correct, so eventually we will have authentic English versions of many of the talks that are reported in these three English volumes, and some that have not previously been known in European languages.

Baha'u'llah and the New Era was written by Esslemont, who discussed its first chapters with Abdu'l-Baha. He used and cited a mixture of authentic canon and pilgrims' notes, and in one case mistook a newspaper editor's words for those of Abdu'l-Baha. But his book became a basic "primer" and has been translated into many languages, so subsequent editors and publication committees have done their best to improve on it. However their own knowledge was not always adequate, and a text prepared by a committee or a sequence of editors easily becomes incoherent. Esslemont knew his audience, whereas the current edition seems to be written for nobody in particular.

Foundations of World Unity is a compilation, which mixes authentic and inauthentic originals and later, corrupted, versions. Because there is nothing there that is not available elsewhere, there is no reason to use it at all.

[robrecht]

Thank you, Sen. I have book marked your translation blog as a source I will check in the future.

[JohnnyP]

This all fine and nice, but it does not reflect the reality of the historical use of the NT in Christianity, particularly in Europe.

It is not only Hitler and Martin Luther, but the whole history of Christianity since Constantine. I acknowledge that many are interpreting the NT differently in recent history. but your neglecting the facts that it a long term endemic problem in Christianity based on NT citations, and in places remains a problem today.

Your references refer outside the basic issue, which is anti-Jewish slaughter, ethnic cleansing, persecution and prejudice in Christian history against specifically Jews in Christian history. The question is not whether your opinion as to whether it was justified or not. It is a fact of history that this view dominated European Christian history up until the mid twentieth century. The wide spread 'Passion plays' in Europe is a good witness to the problem, and is still a problem and issue in some paces like in Eastern Europe.

Again and again we are not talking about the broader problem of antisemitism. The issue is anti-Judaism. The fact is the Christians did use the references in the NT to justify anti-Jewish, slaughter, ethnic cleansing and persecution for 2,000 years. Facts are facts, your opinion as to whether the NT is to blame or not does not change history.

Yes slavery is another unfortunate issue, but at present the OT is not an issue in my argument,

Yeah, justification of slavery

I acknowledge history, but facts remain that Gentiles have had a problem with Judaism since Jews existed, they've been killing each other for several thousands of years. Abraham fighting Kedorlaomer, Pharaoh fighting Jews, Jews fighting Canaanites, Babylonians fighting Jews, Jews and Sassanids fighting Christians, the Church fighting Jews, Jews fighting Palestinians...

So yeah I do think it's mostly irrelevant that Gentiles cherrypicked negative bits of the NT and ignored what it did say about loving enemies, being harmless, not hating Jews even if they are enemies of the Gospel.

Without Christianity there's plenty out there to twist into something bad against Jews. Constantine's continued paganism, Hindu Aryanism. From the looks of recent posts, even Baha'i ideas that Jews brought curses on themselves.

Jews and Gentiles have always fought and probably will until the end, they don't need an NT or anything special to do it, that's the fact you aren't acknowledging.

[robrecht]

I acknowledge history, but facts remain that Gentiles have had a problem with Judaism since Jews existed, they've been killing each other for several thousands of years. Abraham fighting Kedorlaomer, Pharaoh fighting Jews, Jews fighting Canaanites, Babylonians fighting Jews, Jews and Sassanids fighting Christians, the Church fighting Jews, Jews fighting Palestinians...

So yeah I do think it's mostly irrelevant that Gentiles cherrypicked negative bits of the NT and ignored what it did say about loving enemies, being harmless, not hating Jews even if they are enemies of the Gospel.

Without Christianity there's plenty out there to twist into something bad against Jews. Constantine's continued paganism, Hindu Aryanism. From the looks of recent posts, even Baha'i ideas that Jews brought curses on themselves.

Jews and Gentiles have always fought and probably will until the end, they don't need an NT or anything special to do it, that's the fact you aren't acknowledging.

There was anti-Judaism in the ancient world prior to the Advent (!) of Christianity, but, as a general rule, the Jews/Judeans were as often than not regarded positively. There are some oft-quoted negative characterizations of the Jews in surviving ancient literature, but these should be counterbalanced by the numerous positive characterizations.

[Sen McGlinn]

Yes, I saw that. What is the underlying Arabic (Farsi?) term and form used here for 'accursed'?

It is Arabic, a quote from the Quran, 5:64. The verb is L ` N, the pronunciation here is lu`enuu. They are accursed is a good translation. The referent is "the Jews" but in context it is those Jews who say "the Hand of God is chained up." This phrase had the same meaning as "the Gate of Revelation is closed" , which one finds in some Islamic theology texts. No doubt I should know the Christian equivalent too, but I haven't had my first coffee. In all these cases, the religious community protects its canon, and protects itself from schism, by saying there can be no further scriptures. Bahai does the same: "Bahai scripture" is a completed book, although not all its texts have been discovered. No new Bahai scripture can be written. This is understandable and necessary, but then this elides into a belief that God has stopped revealing himself, or his Will. That is blasphemous, it is an "accursed" assertion about God. The Creator God is the God of the new; who speaks in new tongues, and is known by new names.

[Sen McGlinn]

Let me refresh your memory. When I first brought up the case of Sen McGlinn here, you said that “it was a case of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.”

There's no point in asking Shunydragon for sources, as I never made any such claim, and the Universal House of Justice does not have any authority as interpreter of Baha'i scripture either. So it's the case of which of two zeros is the greater.

[robrecht]

There's no point in asking Shunydragon for sources, as I never made any such claim, and the Universal House of Justice does not have any authority as interpreter of Baha'i scripture either. So it's the case of which of two zeros is the greater.

I suspected as much. By the way, does the Universal House of Justice agree that it has no authority to interpret Baha'i scriptures?

[Sen McGlinn]

By the way, does the Universal House of Justice agree that it has no authority to interpret Baha'i scriptures?

Yes, absolutely. To quote one of their statements:

In the Bahá'í Faith there are two authoritative centers appointed to which the believers must turn, for in reality the Interpreter of the Word is an extension of that center which is the Word itself. The Book is the record of the utterance of Bahá'u'lláh, while the divinely inspired Interpreter is the living Mouth of that Book -- it is he and he alone who can authoritatively state what the Book means. Thus one center is the Book with its Interpreter, and the other is the Universal House of Justice guided by God to decide on whatever is not explicitly revealed in the Book.
(7 December 1969, published in "Messages from the Universal House of Justice: 1968-1973", pp. 42-43)

But I fear we are getting rather far from the article on anti-semitism in the NT. I think the article makes a good case, which could have been stronger had the author used the text-critical approach to 1 Corinthians 2:13-16. The NT taken as a whole is rather pro-semitic than anti-semitic, and the same could be said of some of the Church Fathers. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? On the other hand, I think the NT could be taken to task for an unfair presentation of the Pharisees.

[shunyadragon]

You would be amazed at the amount of negative language from Baha'u'llah in Baha'i writings. There are instances where he calls those who deny him and his enemies pigs, dogs, and donkeys amongst a range of other titles.

Your negative prerogative needs explanation or sources otherwise it is simple trashing others without explanation gets you nowhere. I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.

[robrecht]

Yes, absolutely.

Then I don't see a problem. Of course that won't get you on the subway, but take it for what it's worth. Seems to me they should re-enroll you as fast as they can so as not to lose any more credibility.

To quote one of their statements:

I'm going to have to read this again later as its going over my head right now.

But I fear we are getting rather far from the article on anti-semitism in the NT. I think the article makes a good case, which could have been stronger had the author used the text-critical approach to 1 Corinthians 2:13-16. The NT taken as a whole is rather pro-semitic than anti-semitic, and the same could be said of some of the Church Fathers. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? On the other hand, I think the NT could be taken to task for an unfair presentation of the Pharisees.

I haven't read the original 'article' yet (I may get to it when I can), but I whole-heartedly agree with you. Properly understood, the New Testament, at least the more important parts of it, are very pro-Semitic/Jewish. Of course, 'properly understood' is easier said than done. The elements that are oftentimes exaggerated as anti-semitic or anti-Jewish are indeed polemical, but they were sometimes written from the perspective of those who were not in power and who were getting the shorter end of the stick at the time or in their recent past. 1 Thessalonians 2, which I consider to be probably authentic, as also do more and more NT exegetes recently, is more anti-authoritarian, anti-Judean, than anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic, which is how it has been more frequently read throughout history. The Pharisees, as near as we can tell, were a very diverse group over time and had divided themselves into opposing camps before the time of Jesus so they were themselves rather unfair to each other, I suspect. I think Jesus himself got caught in the middle of a firestorm, somewhat of his own making, and which he probably enjoyed to some extent, but by the time that the New Testament was being written, there were few Pharisees around who still looked favorably on Jesus' controversial teaching, although Luke seems to be aware of some. For the most part, the New Testament is evidence of the previously Jewish culture of early Christians emerging into a new culture which was content to leave the Pharisees' disputes behind. The sad thing is, that by recovering as much as we can of the Pharisee culture, we can gain many insights into the context and depth of Jesus' teachings which most Christians will never realize.

[robrecht]

Your negative prerogative needs explanation or sources otherwise it is simple trashing others without explanation gets you nowhere. I have adequately explained the use of accursed, IF YOU READ THE WHOLE CITATION, and not one line. The issue of the improper use of anti-Semitism by Robrecht was also address.

You seemed to read the whole citation as referring to the opposition between Judaism and Christianity when in actuality it seems to be more a matter of the opposition between Judaism and Islam. It is funny to hear you complaining of the negativity of trashing others. Trashing the religions of others does not really witness to the superiority of the Baha'i way, which I believe should encourage what is good in the views of others.