Ellen Brown has trouble understanding what she writes. This is a serious handicap for an author.
Here is what she wrote about the Bible and charging interest.
"Usury" is now defined as charging "excess" interest, but originally it meant merely charging a fee or interest for the use of money. Usury was forbidden in the Christian Bible, and anti-usury laws were strictly enforced by the Catholic Church until the end of the Middle Ages. But in Jewish scriptures, which were later joined to the Christian books as the "Old Testament," usury was forbidden only between "brothers." Charging interest to foreigners was allowed and even encouraged. [Web of Debt, p. 59]
Her words are clear: "Usury was forbidden in the Christian Bible." I responded to this statement in detail. You can read what I wrote here:
As you can see, I quoted both the New Testament and the Old Testament. I showed that there was no prohibition on interest-taking in the New Testament. The prohibition on interest-taking in the Old Testament applied to charitable loans to fellow Hebrews. It did not apply to commercial loans.
She responds by saying that this is not what she wrote. "That's not what I said," she insists. But it was. She then attempts to switch the reader's attention away from what she wrote. She says she was talking about why Jews were bankers. This is a well-known fact to anyone who has studied medieval history. (One of the fields for my master's degree was medieval history.) I had no reason to challenge her on this point. I initially responded to only two things: (1) what she said the Bible teaches about interest; (2) her account of the origin of the Bible.
Here is her response.
8. The "Christian Bible" Prohibits Interest, but not the "Jewish Bible."That's not what I said. I was explaining why Jews historically wound up the "bankers." Christians were forbidden to charge interest at all, while Jews were forbidden only to charge interest to "brothers", meaning other Jews. They COULD charge interest to Christians. This is from Wikipedia:
The Hebrew Bible regulates interest taking. Interest can't be charged to Jews but only to non-Jews.Deuteronomy 23:20 Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest.
Deuteronomy 23:21 Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.
You make an interesting point that it's not in the New Testament. Apparently the prohibition only began in the Middle Ages. I see in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice. This prohibition is contained in the Decree of Gratian, q. 3, C. IV, at the beginning, and c. 4, q. 4, C. IV; and in 1. 5, t. 19 of the Decretals, for example in chapters 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13. These chapters order the profit so obtained to be restored; and Alexander III (c. 4, "Super eo", eodem) declares that he has no power to dispense from the obligation. Chapters 1, 2, and 6, eodem, condemns the strategems to which evenclerics resorted to evade the law of the general councils, and the Third of the Lateran (1179) and the Second of Lyons (1274) condemn usurers. In the Council of Vienne (1311) it was declared that if anyperson obstinately maintained that there was no sin in the practice of demanding interest, he should be punished as a heretic (see c. "Ex gravi", unic. Clem., "De usuris", V, 5).It is a curious fact that for a long time impunity in such matters was granted to Jews. The Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), c. 27, only forbids them to exact excessive interest. Urban III, c. 12, "De usuris" (V. 19) and St. Louis in twenty-three of his regulations extended the prohibition to theJews. With the exception of c. 27 of the Fourth Council of the Lateran, we know of no canon law which takes into consideration the question of moderate interest; and canon law nowhere states distinctly that interest is, under any circumstances whatsoever, contrary to justice.
Okay, I missed that point. But to call my ignorance "astounding" is still a bit of an exaggeration. My book has sold 23,000 copies, and nobody has pointed that out before.
The key words here are these: "Okay, I missed that point."
She adds: "My book has sold 23,000 copies, and nobody has pointed that out." I add: So what? She missed at least 51 other points. Her readers missed at least 50 of those, too. (One she says she corrected in the 2010 edition.) That is why I wrote my original critique.
She fills her response with citations from secondary sources. The first source confirms what I wrote, even citing the verses that I cited, regarding the prohibition on interest from other Jews. But it fails to mention that this prohibition was applied exclusively to charitable loans. Second, she cites a long passages on an issue I never mentioned: the medieval church's prohibition of interest.
She thinks my adjective "astounding" is excessive.
Here is what I wrote to introduce her astounding error: Ellen Brown reveals her astounding ignorance about the Bible with these words. I explained why I thought these words were astounding. (Her words are in bold face.)
But in Jewish scriptures, which were later joined to the Christian books as the "Old Testament". . . . On the contrary, the early church adopted as authoritative the Hebrew Scriptures (in Greek called the Septuagint). Only after the four gospels, the Book of Acts, and the epistles were written did these documents become acceptable to the church as documents possessing equal authority to the Old Testament. That she could make a mistake this fundamental is mind-boggling.
I stand by my statement. Why? Because the Christian books were added to the Jewish scriptures. The Jewish books possessed binding authority in the New Testament era church. They were the basis of the church's authority. Peter quoted from Joel 2 in his first public presentation of the gospel (Acts 2). He quoted Joel's prophecy and said that the newly formed church is the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy. This fact of the original authority of the Old Testament for the New Testament-era church is widely known. I found it astounding that she said what she did about the origin of the Bible. The books that were "later joined" were the New Testament's books.
If she thinks my adjective was excessive, she should respond to my point, to which I added "mind-boggling." It surely boggled my mind!
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.