The focus of the Biblical Heritage Center has been, is, and will continue to be on the Bible—both externally (things about the Bible like origin, formation, transmission, canonization) and internally (the meaning of the words).  But, BHC is also interested in the “biblical heritage” shared by millions of people and will, from time to time, focus on the biblical traditions that make up that heritage (past and present).  Two recent events, revealing that the biblical traditions are still “at work,” were significant enough to be picked up by The Associated Press and published in newspapers across America.  These two events should have given rise to a little thought by anyone who is on a spiritual journey, trying to determine what is right and wrong or good and bad or beautiful and ugly or positive and negative, and, especially, to identify the standard(s) upon which to base such determinations.  WE WOULD WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE EVENTS, AND WE WILL PUBLISH SOME OF THEM IN FUTURE BIBLICAL INSIGHTS WITH YOUR PERMISSION (by citing only your city and/or state of residence).  We do reserve the right to edit them for publication purposes.  What are the events?   

No one should deny that the Holocaust was one of the worst examples, if not the worst example, of man’s inhumanity to man in the history of mankind on earth.  It is still inconceivable to most of us that Hitler put into motion a plan to eradicate the Jews and methodically carried it out until millions of Jews were murdered.  It is one thing to think about this event in broad, philosophical terms; it is another to think about the individuals (men, women and children) who had to go through days, weeks, and months of degradation only to meet death.

Children subjected to medical experiments in Auschwitz.

http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/holocaust.html

For additional pictures, click on the web site address under the picture above.  The Holocaust has now been memorialized in many places, and there are many more web sites than the one just given.

We all know that many German officers stood trial for these war crimes, and several were sentenced to death.

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues96/oct96/nuremberg.html

Nonetheless, just recently in Israel, Shlomo Ben-Izri, a legislator of Shas, an ultra-Orthodox party, gave a religious lecture in which he accused the leaders of the Zionist movement for doing nothing to help some deeply devout Jews to escape from Eastern Europe during the years of the Holocaust.  In effect he was saying that the Zionists, who were mainly secular, focused on rescuing secular Jews at the expense of religious Jews, who were left behind to die.  This accusation, of course, is a very serious charge in the light of the history of the event.  One wonders why a religious Jew would, in the year 2000, bring such an accusation against fellow Jews.  For an article about this in The Jerusalem Post, click here. 

Your thoughts?

For about 80 years, there has been an ongoing debate in the Russian Orthodox Church about the canonization of Czar Nicholas II.  At the center of the debate was the fact that Nicholas was a “haughty and cruel ruler”—not exactly the saintly type.  However, Nicholas had already been made a saint by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which split from the Moscow church in the 1920’s.  This one issue has been a major barrier to the reunification of the two churches.  So on August 14, 2000, by unanimous vote, the Archbishop’s Council has made a saint not only of Nicholas but also his wife, Alexandra, and their four daughters and one son.

Below is a picture of the Czar and his family.

A 1914 photo shows Nicholas II with his wife and five children. From left are Olga, Marie, the Czar, Czarina Alexandra, Anastasia, Alexei and Tatiana. All but Marie and Alexei were interred in St. Petersburg Friday.  For the funeral, click here.

In spite of the strong objections of many people, the justification used for the canonization of Nicholas and his family was stated in the article as follows: “Although Nicholas was reviled by many, he and his family deserved sainthood for their ‘meekness during imprisonment and poise and acceptance of their martyrs’ death,’ according to a church statement.”  This justification does not seem to accord with one account of the “martyrs’ death” (click here).

Is this another case of a religious organization using the old principle of “the end justifies the means”?  [This is a topic we need to discuss at length one of these days.  What are your ideas?] If the goal was reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad with the Russian Orthodox Church, can this really be justified by making a saint out of someone who, based on historical facts, was not saint material and who, based on the records, did not display “poise and acceptance” of his death?  If anyone deserved sainthood for their meekness during imprisonment and poise and acceptance of their death, it was the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust.

What do you think?