Do religious people have claim to the Bible?

[Ilisrum]

I am an agnostic. I come from a (semi) religious Episcopalian English family. I am an agnostic, although I don't blatantly deny the existence of a deity. As an agnostic, I feel a connection to the Bible. I prefer the 'Old Testament' since I have Jewish sympathies, although I do have a great respect for Jesus and his teachings.

My question is, do religious people feel that the Bible is for religious people only, or do they feel that the Bible is universal like, say, the Iliad or the Aeneid?

 

[Levite]

I am an agnostic. I come from a (semi) religious Episcopalian English family. I am an agnostic, although I don't blatantly deny the existence of a deity. As an agnostic, I feel a connection to the Bible. I prefer the 'Old Testament' since I have Jewish sympathies, although I do have a great respect for Jesus and his teachings.

My question is, do religious people feel that the Bible is for religious people only, or do they feel that the Bible is universal like, say, the Iliad or the Aeneid?

It depends on what you're reading it for.

If you're reading the Bible as a non-Jew, with purely anthropological and literary interests, the way that I might read, say, the Baghavad-Gita or the Diamond Sutra, wherein I am not looking for a path for myself, for spiritual teachings to shape my own life, but merely for appreciating craft, for valuing art, and for education about the way in which a people not my own seek for truth and strive for enlightenment and spiritual growth...then no, there is nothing wrong with you (or other non-Jews) reading the Bible and holding it in esteem.

But if your purpose is to glean from it spiritual teachings, and craft it into a path for yourself, without being Jewish or understanding the fullness of the Jewish context of the Hebrew Scriptures (which involves far more than just Tanakh), then you are looking in the wrong place. As a religious or spiritual tool, the Hebrew Scriptures are documents written by Jews, for Jews, in the Jewish language, designed to be understood by Jewish methods of interpretation, and inextricably linked with the Jewish oral tradition. It was never intended for non-Jews; and while many non-Jews have now decided that they have some sort of claim on it, that is their contention, and not the intent of its authors, and it is a notion foreign to Judaism. If what you're looking for is a text supporting your spiritual growth and enlightenment as a non-Jew, I recommend reading Buddhist or Taoist works, unless you plan on converting to some other religion, in which case I recommend Vaishnavic Hinduism, or Islam, or Eastern Orthodox Christianity. They have lovely sacred texts, and are very open to recruiting converts from outside their communities.

 

[Breathe]

I completely agree with Levite.




Ilisrum, if you wish to read the Bible, then by all means do so. You don't have to be "a believer" to read it, or even religious or spiritual. I'm not Christian or Jewish, but I doubt you will find many people who would say "No! You can't read! Mine!" or anything like that. Sure, some people will encourage you to read it with the hopes of converting you, but others won't.

I'm a strong believer in religious scriptures being for everyone to read, not just a particular group.

 

[Ilisrum]

Thanks for the reply, Levite. It's probably the best response I could have hoped for.

My interest in the Hebrew scriptures is primarily literary. I read the JPS translation of the Tanakh and the language just flows, unlike many Christian translations, which just sound uneven and sloppy. As an epic history of the Jewish nation I'd place it up there with the great epics of the Greek and Roman worlds.

 

[Caladan]

I am an agnostic. I come from a (semi) religious Episcopalian English family. I am an agnostic, although I don't blatantly deny the existence of a deity. As an agnostic, I feel a connection to the Bible. I prefer the 'Old Testament' since I have Jewish sympathies, although I do have a great respect for Jesus and his teachings.

My question is, do religious people feel that the Bible is for religious people only, or do they feel that the Bible is universal like, say, the Iliad or the Aeneid?

I'm Jewish. and my answer is an absolute NO. the Hebrew Bible contains the most juicy and spicy politics, social challenges, and great individual stories of triumph, tragedy, sexual exploits, exploits in battle, morbid romance, etc.
It has something for any thinking man.
furthermore many of the Israelite figures themselves show excessive humanity, they do anything from the most noble acts to the most petty acts, such as sending other men to battle so they can court their beautiful women.
therefore its the story of life as we know it. politics, religion, sex, crime, betray, war, the struggle of monarchy and priesthood, etc.
it was written by Jews describing Jewish life, which is a credit to our people as far as I'm concerned, but there is no credit to cripple the interest of other people for reading an original text straight out of some of the most exciting and important periods of the Ancient Near East, the region in which everything started. from the production of beer to the greatest religions the world has known.

 

[Debunker]

I'm Jewish. and my answer is an absolute NO. the Hebrew Bible contains the most juicy and spicy politics, social challenges, and great individual stories of triumph, tragedy, sexual exploits, exploits in battle, morbid romance, etc.
It has something for any thinking man.
furthermore many of the Israelite figures themselves show excessive humanity, they do anything from the most noble acts to the most petty acts, such as sending other men to battle so they can court their beautiful women.
therefore its the story of life as we know it. politics, religion, sex, crime, betray, war, the struggle of monarchy and priesthood, etc.
it was written by Jews describing Jewish life, which is a credit to our people as far as I'm concerned, but there is no credit to cripple the interest of other people for reading an original text straight out of some of the most exciting and important periods of the Ancient Near East, the region in which everything started. from the production of beer to the greatest religions the world has known.

Aman, good job.

 

[JustWondering]

Ironically, it was studying the bible that led me to lose my religion and become agnostic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But if your purpose is to glean from it spiritual teachings, and craft it into a path for yourself, without being Jewish or understanding the fullness of the Jewish context of the Hebrew Scriptures (which involves far more than just Tanakh), then you are looking in the wrong place. As a religious or spiritual tool, the Hebrew Scriptures are documents written by Jews, for Jews, in the Jewish language, designed to be understood by Jewish methods of interpretation, and inextricably linked with the Jewish oral tradition. It was never intended for non-Jews; and while many non-Jews have now decided that they have some sort of claim on it, that is their contention, and not the intent of its authors, and it is a notion foreign to Judaism.

But should the fact that this is "foreign to Judaism" be an obstacle to a non-Jew?

I agree that a non-Jew's selective interpretation of the Tanakh may very well yield a non-Jewish result, but if the person isn't Jewish in the first place, why should that matter to them?

Also, I'm fairly certain that none of the Tanakh's authors could have envisioned then what Jewish society has become today; does this mean that the Tanakh is inappropriate for modern Jews as well?

 

[outhouse]

Ironically, it was studying the bible that led me to lose my religion and become agnostic.

reading it turned me away from all religion.

too many people do not read it allegorically the way it was ment to be read.

The literal translation is that of fiction, too many people to this day still live by.

 

[Caladan]

But should the fact that this is "foreign to Judaism" be an obstacle to a non-Jew?

Of course it is. it is written in a foreign language to them. not only foreign but a distinct language, completely unrecognizable to their ears. it was written by a people and a culture and a people with a distinct mentality, completely unrecognizable to them.

I agree that a non-Jew's selective interpretation of the Tanakh may very well yield a non-Jewish result, but if the person isn't Jewish in the first place, why should that matter to them?

Respect. it can be very useful thing. sometimes it prevents wars.

Also, I'm fairly certain that none of the Tanakh's authors could have envisioned then what Jewish society has become today; does this mean that the Tanakh is inappropriate for modern Jews as well?

Sure, let the Jews disregard the sacred texts of their people and forefathers because they face modern challenges. in effect the challenges of the Jewish people are no that different than those of the Near East in Biblical times. war, politics, alliances, genocides and ethnic cleansing.

 

[Levite]

But should the fact that this is "foreign to Judaism" be an obstacle to a non-Jew?

I agree that a non-Jew's selective interpretation of the Tanakh may very well yield a non-Jewish result, but if the person isn't Jewish in the first place, why should that matter to them?

Also, I'm fairly certain that none of the Tanakh's authors could have envisioned then what Jewish society has become today; does this mean that the Tanakh is inappropriate for modern Jews as well?

Respect for someone else's culture and teachings. That's what it boils down to.

Nobody's going to go out and try to stop non-Jews from using the Tanakh in whatever ways they see fit. It's a free country (and it should be a free world). But at the same time, let's not be under any illusions that taking Tanakh or Kabbalah or any other Jewish teachings and turning them into theological pretzels for non-Jewish practices is anything but disrespectful and often offensive to Jewish text and the Jewish People.

And you're right: probably, the Tanakh's authors didn't envision modern Rabbinic Judaism. But they would still understand that Jews are studying Torah, in conversation with Torah, living with and loving Torah every day. They would recognize the language we use in our greatest works about Torah, because it is their language. They would even recognize some of the methodologies and techniques we use to interpret Torah, because they invented them. And even if Rabbinic Judaism is very different from Biblical Judaism, the covenant at Sinai is still at the heart of it, and the desire of Jews to do mitzvot (follow the commandments) and try to uphold our side of the relationship.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course it is. it is written in a foreign language to them. not only foreign but a distinct language, completely unrecognizable to their ears. it was written by a people and a culture and a people with a distinct mentality, completely unrecognizable to them.

The same could be said for, say, A Book of Five Rings, but I've derived significant meaning from it... even though I'm the product of a completely different culture.

Respect. it can be very useful thing. sometimes it prevents wars.

And is it necessarily disrespectful for a non-Jew to take inspiration from Jewish scripture?

Sure, let the Jews disregard the sacred texts of their people and forefathers because they face modern challenges. in effect the challenges of the Jewish people are no that different than those of the Near East in Biblical times. war, politics, alliances, genocides and ethnic cleansing.

I'm sure there are many commonalities between ancient Jews and modern Jews. However, there are commonalities between all people. Do you really think that the cultural distance from modern Judaism to ancient Judaism is significantly less than the distance from ancient Judaism to other groups?

Respect for someone else's culture and teachings. That's what it boils down to.

Nobody's going to go out and try to stop non-Jews from using the Tanakh in whatever ways they see fit. It's a free country (and it should be a free world). But at the same time, let's not be under any illusions that taking Tanakh or Kabbalah or any other Jewish teachings and turning them into theological pretzels for non-Jewish practices is anything but disrespectful and often offensive to Jewish text and the Jewish People.

But how is it more offensive to do this than to do the same thing with Buddhist or Taoist scriptures, as you suggested?

And you're right: probably, the Tanakh's authors didn't envision modern Rabbinic Judaism. But they would still understand that Jews are studying Torah, in conversation with Torah, living with and loving Torah every day. They would recognize the language we use in our greatest works about Torah, because it is their language.

Is it?

It seems unlikely to me that the language would have remained as it was then, even if you're reading from the same scriptures.

I mean, we're talking about a span of thousands of years. Most of the languages of Europe didn't even exist then. Chinese was very different, as were the languages of India. Was Hebrew immune to the change that apparently affects all other languages?

They would even recognize some of the methodologies and techniques we use to interpret Torah, because they invented them. And even if Rabbinic Judaism is very different from Biblical Judaism, the covenant at Sinai is still at the heart of it, and the desire of Jews to do mitzvot (follow the commandments) and try to uphold our side of the relationship.

But as you point out, it's done in a very different way. If an ancient Jew was somehow teleported to today, do you think he'd feel a connection with modern Judaism in a way he wouldn't feel with other religions?

 

[Ilisrum]

Hip-hop music is in general created by and for black people. Alot of non-blacks still listen to hip-hop anyhow.
Disney targets children as its' main audience. Many adults still watch and enjoy Disney animated films though.
I love Italian food even though I'm not Italian and have never been to Italy.
Livy's History of Rome is a nationalistic Roman history. The Aeneid is essentially a product of Augustan Age propaganda. People today still read these as masterpieces of Western literature, despite the fact that Rome has been dead and gone for 1500 years.

It's sort of unfair for a group to claim ownership of something simply because of its target audience.

 

[Levite]

But how is it more offensive to do this than to do the same thing with Buddhist or Taoist scriptures, as you suggested?

What I said I might do with Buddhist or Taoist scriptures is to read them for literary and artistic value, and as an anthropological or comparative-religions-scholarly look into how other peoples deal with God. What I would not do is to read them (in translation, since I speak neither Sanskrit, Pali, or any Chinese language) and presume that I understood them all correctly and in context, the same as one who read it in its own language, from within its own traditions had done; nor would I go through and pick bits and pieces here and there, out of context, and blithely incorporate them into my own practice, for my own purposes, and consider what I had done to be perfectly within my rights.

If someone reads the Tanakh, or any other Jewish sacred text, with the former agenda in mind, I have no issue with them. In fact, I would be delighted to teach them myself. But if their agenda is the latter, then I call it disrespectful, and wish no part of it.

It seems unlikely to me that the language would have remained as it was then, even if you're reading from the same scriptures. I mean, we're talking about a span of thousands of years. Most of the languages of Europe didn't even exist then. Chinese was very different, as were the languages of India. Was Hebrew immune to the change that apparently affects all other languages?

Of course there have been changes in language. And the daily speech of a Tel Aviv street would probably be impossible for an ancient Israelite to follow, it being so packed with idiom and acronyms, not to mention the shifts in accent. However, if a well-educated modern Hebrew speaker were put into a room with an ancient Israelite, I believe it would take less time for them to communicate clearly with one another than, say, a speaker of modern English put into a room with someone speaking Middle English-- even Chaucer's polished London dialect.

When I spent the year living in Jerusalem, the Israel Museum was having a special exhibit: they had completely unrolled the scroll of Isaiah that they found in the Qumran caves, as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection, so that it might be seen in its entirety. They have, of course, small scrolls and segments always on display, but this is almost the full book of Isaiah-- it's the longest intact scroll in the collection. I spent a lot of time in that dimly-lit display room, looking at the scroll. And what astounded me, given that this predates any similarly-sized fragment of Tanakh we have by several hundred years, and is probably around a century pre-Rabbinic times, is how readable it was. The spelling had some variations, and occasionally they slid from Babylonian characters into Ancient Hebrew characters, but overall, it was astonishingly comprehensible. Among other things, what struck me was that the majority of the spelling variations were due to their not having vowel pointillation yet, and so they tended to insert certain consonants in place of vowels, in order to clarify pronunciation. And it was crystal clear that their pronunciation of words was remarkably similar to ours.

I also had the chance to hear Samaritan Hebrew spoken. Their traditional pronunciation, spelling, alphabet, and so forth have remained largely uncontaminated by other languages, and their tradition is isolated, having diverged from pre-Rabbinic Judaism over 2000 years ago. Their Hebrew is considered to be representative of a far more antique mode of the language than any other, save perhaps for certain Yemenite pronunciations and dialectic differences. Now, I admit, for the first ten minutes or so I heard Samaritan Hebrew, I couldn't understand a thing. But the longer I heard it, the more understandable it became. By the end of the hour I spent in that Samaritan guy's seminar, I was getting the majority of what he was saying-- and Hebrew isn't even my first language.

Yes, I think that the language has changed. But not to the point of unrecognizability, or replacement with a daughter language.

But as you point out, it's done in a very different way. If an ancient Jew was somehow teleported to today, do you think he'd feel a connection with modern Judaism in a way he wouldn't feel with other religions?

Yes. We might be strange to him, but we're still family. No question in my mind. We are still closer to what he would know than anything else around.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

To me no one group can possibly have claim to the Bible, especially in the West where our entire world has been influenced by this book heavily.

 

[Caladan]

The same could be said for, say, A Book of Five Rings, but I've derived significant meaning from it... even though I'm the product of a completely different culture.

Funny. the people I practiced with had complete disregard for many translations of the book. be sure though, that even if you have the better translation. you will not get out of it what a Japanese martial artist will, who is more likely to relate to the linguistic qualities and mentality of Musashi.

And is it necessarily disrespectful for a non-Jew to take inspiration from Jewish scripture?

Wow. that's one hell of a way to take me out of context. you just said it should not matter to non Jews to take the Hebrew Bible out of context because its not theirs. when millions of my kind were murdered because of Europeans taking the Hebrew Bible out of context, I tend to take it personally.
when people in modern times take the Hebrew bible and justify their superstitions with them, such as Israelites arriving and living as native Americans in the New World, I consider it a spit on my face, and on the hard works of the Scribes.

I'm sure there are many commonalities between ancient Jews and modern Jews. However, there are commonalities between all people. Do you really think that the cultural distance from modern Judaism to ancient Judaism is significantly less than the distance from ancient Judaism to other groups?

I have no idea what you've just said.

 

[Caladan]

It's sort of unfair for a group to claim ownership of something simply because of its target audience.

Nonsense. its ALL about that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I said I might do with Buddhist or Taoist scriptures is to read them for literary and artistic value, and as an anthropological or comparative-religions-scholarly look into how other peoples deal with God.

The bit that I'm wondering about is where you suggested that a non-Jew could seek out Buddhist and Taoist scriptures as "text supporting your spiritual growth and enlightenment as a non-Jew", while at the same time advising the OP not "to glean from [the Tanakh] spiritual teachings".

What I would not do is to read them (in translation, since I speak neither Sanskrit, Pali, or any Chinese language) and presume that I understood them all correctly and in context, the same as one who read it in its own language, from within its own traditions had done; nor would I go through and pick bits and pieces here and there, out of context, and blithely incorporate them into my own practice, for my own purposes, and consider what I had done to be perfectly within my rights.

If someone reads the Tanakh, or any other Jewish sacred text, with the former agenda in mind, I have no issue with them. In fact, I would be delighted to teach them myself. But if their agenda is the latter, then I call it disrespectful, and wish no part of it.

And I'm not really sure why that's necessarily disrespectful.

If a person took bits and pieces from the Tanakh, combined them with non-Jewish ideas and called the end product "Jewish", sure, but I don't really see how it's disrespectful for a person to take their own inspiration from some aspect of Jewish scripture.

Of course there have been changes in language. And the daily speech of a Tel Aviv street would probably be impossible for an ancient Israelite to follow, it being so packed with idiom and acronyms, not to mention the shifts in accent. However, if a well-educated modern Hebrew speaker were put into a room with an ancient Israelite, I believe it would take less time for them to communicate clearly with one another than, say, a speaker of modern English put into a room with someone speaking Middle English-- even Chaucer's polished London dialect.

Probably. And even Middle English is only a thousand years old; not even close to the 2000-3000 years we're talking for the Tanakh. Old English (which isn't even as old as the language of the Tanakh) would be completely incomprehensible to me. It's probably closer to modern German than it is to modern English... which is the point I was trying to get at: in the case of British culture, it's been so transformed by contact with other cultures over the past few millenia that it bears absolutely no resemblance to what was there before, to the point where other people in other parts of the world probably have more in common with the ancient Britons than a modern Briton does. And it seems to me that this is typical of most cultural history all over the world.

In the case of Britain, cultural crossover from the Romans and Normans (among others, but those are the biggies) re-shaped the culture until it was unrecognizable. In the case of the Jews, we're talking about a culture that was subjected to just as much outside influence as Britain if not more, with the Greeks, Babylonians, Persians, Romans/Byzantines, Caliphates, European Crusaders, and Ottomans... yet it kept its cultural identity intact? If so, then this is virtually unheard of.

When I spent the year living in Jerusalem, the Israel Museum was having a special exhibit: they had completely unrolled the scroll of Isaiah that they found in the Qumran caves, as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection, so that it might be seen in its entirety. They have, of course, small scrolls and segments always on display, but this is almost the full book of Isaiah-- it's the longest intact scroll in the collection. I spent a lot of time in that dimly-lit display room, looking at the scroll. And what astounded me, given that this predates any similarly-sized fragment of Tanakh we have by several hundred years, and is probably around a century pre-Rabbinic times, is how readable it was. The spelling had some variations, and occasionally they slid from Babylonian characters into Ancient Hebrew characters, but overall, it was astonishingly comprehensible. Among other things, what struck me was that the majority of the spelling variations were due to their not having vowel pointillation yet, and so they tended to insert certain consonants in place of vowels, in order to clarify pronunciation. And it was crystal clear that their pronunciation of words was remarkably similar to ours.

I also had the chance to hear Samaritan Hebrew spoken. Their traditional pronunciation, spelling, alphabet, and so forth have remained largely uncontaminated by other languages, and their tradition is isolated, having diverged from pre-Rabbinic Judaism over 2000 years ago. Their Hebrew is considered to be representative of a far more antique mode of the language than any other, save perhaps for certain Yemenite pronunciations and dialectic differences. Now, I admit, for the first ten minutes or so I heard Samaritan Hebrew, I couldn't understand a thing. But the longer I heard it, the more understandable it became. By the end of the hour I spent in that Samaritan guy's seminar, I was getting the majority of what he was saying-- and Hebrew isn't even my first language.

Yes, I think that the language has changed. But not to the point of unrecognizability, or replacement with a daughter language.

Hmm. If you say so, I guess I believe you... but as I said, it's virtually unheard of for a culture to have the degree of outside influence that the ancient and medieval Hebrews did and not be significantly affected by it.

Yes. We might be strange to him, but we're still family. No question in my mind. We are still closer to what he would know than anything else around.

And he wouldn't feel that the other Abrahamic religions are also "family"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Funny. the people I practiced with had complete disregard for many translations of the book. be sure though, that even if you have the better translation. you will not get out of it what a Japanese martial artist will, who is more likely to relate to the linguistic qualities and mentality of Musashi.

Oh, quite possibly. But that's not to say that I can't get anything of value out of it.

Wow. that's one hell of a way to take me out of context.

I'm not trying to take you out of context. The meaning of your last statement wasn't clear - I picked the meaning I thought was most likely your intended one and asked you to confirm that I was understanding you.

you just said it should not matter to non Jews to take the Hebrew Bible out of context because its not theirs. when millions of my kind were murdered because of Europeans taking the Hebrew Bible out of context, I tend to take it personally.

So taking the Hebrew Bible out of context necessarily leads to the Holocaust? Or were you thinking of the Crusades?

when people in modern times take the Hebrew bible and justify their superstitions with them, such as Israelites arriving and living as native Americans in the New World, I consider it a spit on my face, and on the hard works of the Scribes.

So Jewish religious beliefs are sacred, but Mormon beliefs are "superstitions" that insult your history?

And frankly, I don't see that much difference between the Mormon idea of Israelites in the New World and the Jewish idea of the Exodus from Egypt. Neither are supported by the evidence (in fact, the evidence points against both claims), but both are used to justify ideas that could be considered "superstitions".

I have no idea what you've just said.

I'm just trying to say that all cultures change over time. Sure, there are similarities between ancient Jews and modern Jews, but how much of that comes down to the mere fact that there are similarities between all people?

 

[Caladan]

Oh, quite possibly. But that's not to say that I can't get anything of value out of it.

Which was my first and original point in this very thread. as long as people do not revisionize the text to suit their own questionable agendas, it can only inspire them for various exploits in their own life.

So taking the Hebrew Bible out of context necessarily leads to the Holocaust? Or were you thinking of the Crusades?

In the time span of almost 2000 years since Christians began harnessing the Hebrew scriptures for their own religious agendas, Jews have been persecuted through out the European continent. after Christianity came into allegiance with the Roman empire and authorities, things changed drastically for the Jewish people. from an educated approach and interaction between many Jews and Roman subjects, matters quickly deteriorated after Christianity began to emerge as a state religion. the enlightened process of acceptance between Jews and other Romans degenerated. like in the previous century in Europe, the authorities legalized regulations limiting the Jews their activities, their rights, and their personal safety as subjects of the authorities.
The old Judas cliche has proved very successful throughout history, to the point that only in the 60's the Catholic church absolved the Jews from the sin Judas committed. Jewish communities were wiped out throughout European history. whenever an economical or political distress rose, the Jews were targeted for venting public frustration.
The Church and clergy has embodied all the theological woes of their dogma, and all the domestic woes of their cultures on this specific group. all backed up by doctrine and deformed use of scriptures and theology.
the Hebrew Bible has been plagiarized for centuries by Christian bodies down to the misuse of language (whether in Hebrew or Greek) in order to support gullible and supernatural Christian absurdities and the never ending nuisance of needing to believe in unsupported miracles instead of dealing with the difficulties of everyday life and reality.
even in WWII. many Christians based their centuries old superstition to persecute Jewish communities.
and I can personally testify for that. my grandfather's house and property were completely taken by Polish Christians, his family betrayed to the Nazis by the same Christian neighbours. and ironically its possible that I'm demanded to pay twice the price to get an advanced degree for not being EU residence, when all I can think of is 'you ******* I was EU, until they took our home and wiped out almost the entire family, sure I'll pay you double your blood money. you just make sure you remember this face.'
So it is very personal. because no matter how much you try right here in the very thread to separate modern Jews from their physical history, or 'ancient Jews' as you call it, our everyday life are a manifestation and experience of this direct linkage, we live our history every single day, and follow all the events relating to it, and take active part in them.

For that reason, Jews do not take any chances. when people plagiarize our national and cultural text for anything other than what it is meant for, we will educate ourselves enough to legally outlaw any revisionism that may pose a serious and dramatic risk to our people.

So Jewish religious beliefs are sacred, but Mormon beliefs are "superstitions" that insult your history?

Can you try for a minute to stop being so thick and square?
You very well know that my approach to the Hebrew scripture is strongly critical and based on years of spending time in an academic institution. and you probably see Jewish members giving each other the space of interpretation of their own text.
however, when non Jews take the Hebrew scriptures and craft absurdities from them for other people to follow, it is a threat, plagiarizing is punishable with ex communication in EVERY academic institution, and is a spit in the face of the hard working Israelite and Jewish scribes.
Yes. it is an insult. I would never take the Qur'an for example and say that Allah is a resident of a foreign planet, and that Arabs are not who they are.
Claiming that Jews are another people, IS REVISIONISM. which is very popular today, as it was throughout history.

And frankly, I don't see that much difference between the Mormon idea of Israelites in the New World and the Jewish idea of the Exodus from Egypt. Neither are supported by the evidence (in fact, the evidence points against both claims), but both are used to justify ideas that could be considered "superstitions".

Only to the untrained eyes.
The difference is. that the Jewish scriptures tell the story of the Jewish people, not of the 'Mormon people'.

I'm just trying to say that all cultures change over time. Sure, there are similarities between ancient Jews and modern Jews, but how much of that comes down to the mere fact that there are similarities between all people?

Every culture and people are distinct. and the entire legacy of Judaism and the Jewish people is based on that distinction.