Kosher Pirates: Hebrews on the high seas & seeing if MJs should do the same..

[rsduncan]

HeHe, I knew someone couldn't resist, but I left it anyway, thanks guys for the first laugh of the day!

Actually it might just be what happens after you have too many Lattes!

You are such a good sport, Lulav! Love ya!!!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I haven't done much research recently on it, but I remember reading somewhere that it was found in his log books a notation that is totally Jewish. He was probably another forced convert, but on the voyage supported by the Spanish Crown he did not have to hide it and started his entries with B''H, which for those not familiar is a shorthand for a blessing of the Holy One. He most likely meant the latter.

It can mean, Baruch Hashem, or Be’ezrat Hashem, 'with G-ds help'

Would love to find out where you read what you did so I could study myself as well. Good theory to consider....and if he was indeed a forced convert, that's one more aspect to the man that makes him that much more intriguing. Something I remembered reading from an article entitled "Destination: The New World - My Jewish Learning" :

Jewish folklore has long connected Columbus’s voyage (1492) with the expulsion of the Jews from Spain (also 1492). Since there are few records of Columbus’ personal life, generations of Jews, Italian and Spaniards have speculated and divined over clues to his origins and motivations. While this kind of conjecture is the stuff of myth and legend, there is something valuable to be said about the congruence of the voyage and the departure of the Jews. Although the it signaled the end of the Jewish community in Spain, the expulsion precipitated the formation of a series of new Jewish communities around the world, not the least significant of which were those in Columbus’s New World. Sachar's article, which traces the origins of Jewish settlement in the New World, is reprinted with permission from Farewell Espana: The World of the Sephardim Remembered, published by Alfred A. Knopf.


Was Columbus Jewish?

Jewish filiopietists, as well as several non‑Jewish historians, have speculated that the "Admiral of the Ocean Sea" was a Jew. They note that the Spanish name, Colon, was a not uncommon one in Hebrew tradition; that his father was a weaver, one of the few trades open to Jews in his native ­Genoa; that his mother, Susanna Fonterossa, was the daughter of Jacobo Fonterossa and granddaughter of Abraham Fonterossa [also common Jewish names].

The hypothesizing has been extensive, and Columbus himself doubtless was responsible for much of it. His letters in the Archives [the Archives of the Indies in Seville] drop tantalizing hints: "I am not the first admiral of my family, let them give me whatever name they please; for when all is done, David, that most prudent king, was first a shepherd and afterward chosen King of Jerusalem, and I am a servant of that same Lord who raised him to such a dignity."


In his ship’s log, Columbus makes frequent references to the Hebrew Bible, to Jerusalem to Moses, David, Abraham, Isaac, and Sarah. He computes the age of the ­world according to the Jewish calendar: ". . . and from the destruction: the Second Temple according to the Jews to the present day, being the year of the birth of Our Lord 1481, are 1413 years…" In his last will and testament, Columbus asks that one‑tenth of his income be given to the poor; that a dowry be provided for poor girls “in such a way that they do not notice whence it comes"‑-a characteristically anonymous technique of Jewish philanthropy.


Jewish Astronomer-navigators and Financiers Supported the Voyage

Today, however, most scholars dismiss the rather poignant effort to ­judaize Columbus. They prefer to focus on the overwhelming thoroughly documented role of Jews in the great mariner's voyages of discovery. In ­Lisbon, Columbus knew and consulted Joseph Vecinho, Martin Behaim ­and other [Jewish, either professing or converso] astronomer‑navigators of the royal court. It was Vecinho who presented Columbus with a Castilian translation of Zacuto's tables. [Abraham Zacuto was an openly Jewish professor of astronomy and navigation at the University of Salamanaca. His most important achievement was a table of celestial position that allowed sailors to ascertain their latitudes without recourse to the sun’s meridian. Ed.] Later, Zacuto himself also met Columbus, and endorsed his pro­posed Atlantic expedition….Not the least of those hazards [of the voyage] was the absence of funding. For Columbus, none could be found in Portugal. He moved on to the Spanish court in Andalusia.

There he was received sympathetically by the small group of royal officials, among them…Luis de Santangel. [A converso, Santangel] emerged as particularly vital to Columbus's expedition. Chancellor of ­ King Fernando's household, comptroller‑general of Aragon, and an immensely wealthy tax‑farmer on his own account, Santangel was in a unique position to exert influence at court. Personally, he favored Columbus’s­ Atlantic venture and recommended it to his ruler.

When the king was not forthcoming, Santangel arranged three separate audiences for Columbus with Castile's Queen Isabel. Both men made a strong case. As an additional inducement, Santangel offered to advance 1.4 million maravedis of his own. Finally persuaded, the queen‑-and her husband--then supplied the rest of the funds. Santangel's crucial intermediary­ role would not be forgotten. It was to him that Columbus sent off report of his discovery after returning from his initial Atlantic voyage.
​

I do think there's more than enough information there for one to make a credible claim that Columbus had Jewish in his blood. And some historians have gone even further in saying Columbus's voyage was a symbol of hope to other Jews who left Spain and wanted to find new worlsds as well (As seen here). But who knows. Was Columbus a Gentile or a Jew? Was he a Marrano or a Converso? Was he Cristoforo Colombo the Italian Catholic or Cristbal Coln the Spanish Jew? In the final analysis, Columbus' ethnic background is not the important issue (IMHO), but rather - as is ultimately true for each of us also - his spiritual condition. For the Word of God instructs us to "seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all things will be added unto us" (Matthew 6:33).

That said.... said before (and to be real), I'd be lying if I said I would want Columbus to turn out as Jewish since it would really tick ALOT of people (both Jew and Gentile ) off if it was the case that Columbus was a Jew. For that'd mean that one of the most hated men in history for an extensive myriad of reasons (i.e. supporting slavery in the New World, the extermination of many Native Americans/Indigineous peoples of the new world, aquisition of land that he could not claim since one can not discover someone else's home/claim dominance, etc)---that man was actually one of the very people who were previously oppressed. And how ironic it'd be that the history behind his heritage would not deter him from doing some of the things that he did.

There are already others who deem Columbus as a dictator. In the minds of many, including many others in the Native American community, Christopher Columbus is likened to Hitler since they see him as a man responsible for the utter destruction and decimation of Native people in the Americas. Others may be shocked to see that---but when destruction is done to one group by someone, it's hard to look past it.

But just as there were corrupt people within the scriptures from the Hebrew people---both kings and peasants---whom the Lord sharply condemned/told them that they should have known better, the same would be the case with Columbus if he was indeed Jewish. The potential for anti-semitic backlash is something I'm always cautious of since many things have already been attributted to the Jews as if they were SOLELY responsible and that is not proper---but there is the other side of things with Philio-Semitism where all things "Jewish" are deemed in the best light instead of showing people realistically with all of their flaws, just as the Bible does with Jews/Gentiles alike...and when confronted with people from the camp who were far from the best, others aren't comfortable with it.

As another American Indian said best of Columbus:

As an explorer, Columbus was not the first to reach the Western Hemisphere. Native Americans had been here for 10,000-20,000 years, and Vikings and Chinese are among those others who hold prior claims. Even after four attempts, Columbus never realized his goal of finding a western ocean route to Asia. As a “founding father type figure” he never set foot in what is now considered America but landed in the present day Bahamas, Cuba, and Haiti. As a Christian example he enacted terrible cruelties to friendly natives: assuming unlawful rights of authority; robbing and subjugating whole nations of their freedom and entire capital; allowing his men to rape, murder and pillage at will; and deliberately leading the way for the genocide of millions, considered by many to be the worst demographic catastrophe in recorded history.

So why do Americans celebrate Columbus Day?
​

Perhaps it is because this holiday is foundational to establishing the American myth that Western European exploration, technology, science, governance, religion, etc. are all superior to the cultural contributions of the rest of the world — but that is just not true.

For example, prior to European contact, great civilizations thrived in America with unparalleled techniques in urban planning, micro-agriculture, macro-enviromental management (including ecology, xeriscape, agronomy, botany, forestry, and raised bed, naturally fertilized gardening), sustainable architecture (including passive solar heating), psychology, philosophy, religion, ethics, science, math, medicine (including brain surgery and dentistry), government, language, education, rhetoric, intercontinental economic trade, successful peacemaking, etc. Most Americans have little correct knowledge of Ancient American civilizations.

If you think large cities are a mark of ascendancy (and I don’t), then consider the fact that Cahokia (East St. Louis) was one of the largest urban centers in the world in its day, (apex circa 1200 A.D.). The city of Cahokia had in excess of 15,000 residents with numerous suburbs and agricultural centers creating a total urban population of more than 40,000 residents. It was only surpassed in size in America in 1800 C.E. by Philadelphia, PA.

The point is not whose “stuff” is the best but rather why can’t we celebrate it all without pulling from despicable despots of the past like Columbus? Euro-Americans landed in America. The accomplishments of the people who were here prior to their arrival should be celebrated and memorialized along with those who came here later. If Woody Guthrie was right, “this land was made for you and me.” Why can’t we share it together? This includes all of our history and all of our accomplishments. We have begun to do this with other ethnic groups. For example, many non-African Americans are now proud to celebrate the fame of Jackie Robinson. American sports fans everywhere take pride in Robinson’s entrance into a formerly segregated sport — which led the way for other African-American athletes.

When Americans continue to celebrate Columbus Day we do damage — not just to Native America but to all Americans. Jews will never celebrate the rise of the Third Reich. Ugandans will not likely hail the legacy of Idi Amin, Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge Regime, et. al. This Columbus Day, let’s see Columbus for what he was and begin to celebrate new legacies of the past that better represent where we want to be as an America of the future. Maybe by next year we will be officially celebrating a pre-Columbus day!



​

That was from Rev. Dr. Randy Woodley, who is a Keetoowah Cherokee Indian descendent and the author of Living in Color: Embracing God’s Passion for Ethnic Diversity. He teaches history, theology, and culture at George Fox Evangelical Seminary in Portland, Oregon....and he alongside many other Indigeinous peoples have noted how odd it is that men are celebrated only for the good they opened up while the negative is either ignored or made into something praiseworthy---as it is whenever people say Columbus' actions were justified because of what has happened since with the development of the new world.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I haven't done much research recently on it, but I remember reading somewhere that it was found in his log books a notation that is totally Jewish. He was probably another forced convert, but on the voyage supported by the Spanish Crown he did not have to hide it and started his entries with B''H, which for those not familiar is a shorthand for a blessing of the Holy One. He most likely meant the latter.

It can mean, Baruch Hashem, or Be’ezrat Hashem, 'with G-ds help'

I may be alone with this here on this forum...but I really do hope Columbus was not Jewish. In no way is that said to say that it is somehow the case that all of those within Jewish culture are either like him or are guilty by association since that'd be ludicrious. But it would interesting to consider all of the actions he did against the backdrop of a Jewish heritage since he as a Jew should have know better than to violate the Laws of God in the things he did to others (i.e. violence, slavery, etc)---and if being a Crypto-Jew, it would seem odd for him to support the destruction of another group simply to ensure that his own group possibly have a fighting chance for survival and opportunity.....as that'd be akin to staring one Holocaust to a people you don't know due to seeing another occur to your own people. None of that would look good as a reflection of Jewish culture. However, if Columbus was indeed Jewish and one of God's people/children of Israel, then his actions highlight the reality of how much ALL men are in need of the grace of the Lord regardless of their ethnic/religious heritage...and no one is righteous apart from the blood of Yeshua.


For those who may be West Indian Jews/having black or Indian/Hispanic ancestry in their blood (i.e. Taino Jews ) and made their homes in Latin Ameria, it can be a sensitive issue...and if interested, there was actually an excellent book on the subject that really tripped me out when reading on how ruthless Columbus was...entitled "Black Indians." One can go here for more.

• Lesson Plan - Columbus Day
• Thanksgiving . . . and Who to Thank
• Reconsider Columbus Day | The Nation
• Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress
• Columbus and the Destruction of Native peoples
• WBAI Radio Interview on Christopher Columbus
  Black Indians Explore Challenges Of 'Hidden' Heritage : NPR
• A Native American's View of Columbus Day : Tell Me More : NPR
• Why Are We Working on Columbus Day? | Sojourners: Celebrating

Is Columbus Day a celebration of Native American massacre ...​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Oh, the '2' ? That was my new puppy who likes to cuddle close to the laptop with me, usually he puts on the caps lock or makes the QuickPlay pop up.

Got ya. Makes me wish I was able to squeeze/hug him from where I'm at

 

[MessianicMommy]

Not much to add, but I find the topic interesting.

 

[chunkofcoal]

Was piracy something which would always be deemed as a sin according to Torah? Or would there ever be a time for a time for a marine "Robin Hood" that'd be allowed?

That is an interesting question. It makes me wonder where the line is drawn between 'taking a spoil' and 'stealing'.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Not much to add, but I find the topic interesting.

Curious as to why the topic was of any interest to you, though glad to know it was of interest concerning those who are professional pirates.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That is an interesting question. It makes me wonder where the line is drawn between 'taking a spoil' and 'stealing'.

Wow. Never considered that angle at all, in regards to what the Torah discusses with 'taking a spoil' from those who they deemed to be enemies of God and others who were aggressive toward them...and when considering what the scriptures say on "taking a spoil", it truly does give an entirely differing perspective to Piracy...

One of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel was: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). In the book of Leviticus, one can read where “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them… You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another…. You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him’ ” (19:1-2,11,13). If a thief was found breaking into a house and was struck so that he died, the old law stated that there would be “no guilt for his bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2). Under the new covenant, the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, saying, “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (4:28). And to the Christians at Corinth, Paul wrote that thieves “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6).

However, some of that seems odd to consider when it comes to what the Word showed with spoils--a form of stealing essentially--and how that was justified in the OT( Numbers 31:11-13 Numbers 31/ )

Numbers 31:52

Dividing the Spoils

25 The LORD said to Moses, 26 “You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community.

20:13-15 /Deuteronomy 20

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
​

The same theme is repeated throughout the Torah (Deuteronomy 3:6-8/ Deuteronomy 3, Deuteronomy 2:34-36 /Deuteronomy 2, Joshua 8:1-3 Joshua 8 , Joshua 8:26-28, Joshua 11:13-15 ,Joshua 11 , Joshua 22:7-9 /Joshua 22, 1 Samuel 17:52-54 / 1 Samuel 17 ,1 Samuel 30:25-27/ 1 Samuel 30 , 2 Samuel 12:29-31 /2 Samuel 12, 2 Kings 7:1/2 Kings 7:15-17 , 1 Chronicles 20:1-3 . 1 Chronicles 26:26-28 ,1 Chronicles 26 , 2 Chronicles 14:12-14/ 2 Chronicles 14 , 2 Chronicles 15:10-12 / 2 Chronicles 15 , 2 Chronicles 20:24-26 / 2 Chronicles 20, 2 Chronicles 28:14-16/ 2 Chronicles 28 ) that at multiple points/on multiple levels, the soldiers who were involved in fighting what they deemed to be "just wars" against others were to give part of the plunder they found unto the Lord---and yet, they were also allowed to essentially "keep the rest of the booty" for themselves.

The book of Esther also comes to mind (especially in regards to the Feast of Purim instituted), as the celebration of the Jews deliverance was also seen in how they were allowed to fight back against their enemies and plunder them as well ( Esther 8:11, Esther 8:10-12 /Esther 8 ). The Bible seemed to prescribe that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary. With the book of Esther, it is noteworthy to see how the Jews did not plunder the spoils of their enemies even though they wiped them out, indicating that they did not see this as an ordinary battle of survival. Rather, they apparently perceived it as strictly self-defense and that they should not exceed this mandate.......


It seems like some instances of piracy were justified---and on the issue, if you believe that the Torah still allows for God's people to fight back physically against those who are enemies of God when they attack us (as discussed here in Chanakuh, Pacifism and Presentations of Christ as a Militant ), things get even more interesting since it'd seem that many would perhaps have the right to choose the life of piracy. Quite possibly, those who were Jewish Pirates during the 15th-16th centuries/The Age of Discovery and who also were involved in other significant events like the American Revolution would have been more closer to Torah in many ways

There were instances within the Torah, of course, where plundering others was something not commended...such as what occurred with Simeon and Levi when they killed all of the men of Shechem because of how their prince raped Dinah. It was not appropriate for them to do as they did, nor were they right in taking all of the cattle/sheep and resources ( Genesis 34:28-30 /Genesis 34 )---and another example would be what occurred with Achan's sin when he took plunder he was not allowed to have ( Joshua 7:20-22 /Joshua 7, ). The same occurred with Saul when he was told to slaughter everything fully ( 1 Samuel 15:18-20 ) 1 Samuel 15 ), as the Torah also gave rules for when things were not to be plundered/benefited from ( Deuteronomy 13:15-17 / Deuteronomy 13 ).


Curious as to how that would all work out if discussing how the Torah is the way to go..for it is odd to see how often others would be condemnend throughout history for plundering their enemies of Good if claiming to believe in God..and yet the TOrah doesn't always seem to condemn it. Part of me is reminded of what has already occurred throughout Jewish history, such as in the time of Maccabbees and the revolts of the Jewish people/doing whatever necessary to survive as a people. The same thing goes for those groups such as the Zealots and how they were considered ( as discussed more in-depth in threads such as Chanakuh, Pacifism and Presentations of Christ as a Militant and Mel Gibsons New Biblical Movie ).....and the ways others can be labeled wrongly by an oppressive power are interesting. If someone were to come into the American colonies during the 17th century/forced them to adapt to the ways of a larger empire, those rebelling and looting would be deemed as "rebels" (insurgents) or even "thieves" for not giving to a dominant group what they felt was owed to them--but from the perspective of those fighting back against oppression, they'd be considered as heros/revolutionaries.....people who stood against tyranny and did what was necessary.

Again, it truly does give an entirely differing perspective to Piracy...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I would not be surprised if some took it into their heads to take revenge upon the crown of Spain, who was a big power back then.

2

Would you personally raid an enemy if they wronged you in the same way as the Spainards did with the Jews? For myself, history is one thing...but what we do in making our own history (in light of what others did previously based on their own understanding of theology) is another thing. And in line with chunkofcoal's question on finding out where the line's drawn on taking the spoil and stealing ( as seen in #26 and #28 ), how we respond has to be informed.

 

[MessianicMommy]

Curious as to why the topic was of any interest to you, though glad to know it was of interest concerning those who are professional pirates.

Well, Partly because I have actually lived in Spain. It was a long time ago, but my dad made sure we studied Spanish history.

We also didn't live far from two of the ports that Christopher Columbus sailed out of. The area is mostly fishing and agriculture, with tourism taking up most of the year.

The time that he sailed out, was a very turbulent time for the crown and also for the people. The Moors were still being fought out of Portugal and Spain, specifically the areas he sailed out of in Andalucia. (Cadiz and Sanlucar de Barrameda) And even now, the minority Basques are fighting to reconquer the lands of their forefathers. This has been going on mostly since 1968. Maybe you heard of their terrorist/freedom-fighter group called ETA?


Anyway, With all that was going on, and the fact that not everyone who left on the ships decided to settle on the islands, many continued with him to see new lands. I don't agree with his reasons for conquering, but it was a means to an end, to keep our people from being completely wiped out in the Spanish/Portugese lands.

Lots of history there, lots of little insights to be had. As far as piracy goes, I can see where people would say it's a means to an end. I mean, even during the struggle before and during independence, there's been talk that there was a bit of piracy going on for the colonies, taking spoil from the crown. Mostly due to the injust taxes and the fact it was keeping many people on a level of poverty that they could not function on. It became a kind of "Robin Hood" method to keep people's heads above water - financially speaking.


Would I personally participate? I don't rightly know. Never been in a situation where I had to make such stark choices really, and it'd be a very dangerous lifestyle... I could in theory see where it could work though.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, Partly because I have actually lived in Spain. It was a long time ago, but my dad made sure we studied Spanish history.

We also didn't live far from two of the ports that Christopher Columbus sailed out of. The area is mostly fishing and agriculture, with tourism taking up most of the year.
.

Wishing I was able to travel as extensively as you have, though glad for how your father made the experience possible for you. Spain has always seemed like a place that'd be really amazing to visit....

The time that he sailed out, was a very turbulent time for the crown and also for the people. The Moors were still being fought out of Portugal and Spain, specifically the areas he sailed out of in Andalucia. (Cadiz and Sanlucar de Barrameda) And even now, the minority Basques are fighting to reconquer the lands of their forefathers. This has been going on mostly since 1968. Maybe you heard of their terrorist/freedom-fighter group called ETA?

Haven't heard of the group known as the ETA, though I appreciate you making me aware of them. I don't know whether or not they'll truly be successful in what tthey're trying to do..though I could relate to them on having some feelings of resentment toward the Spanish just as many Jews had resentment toward them when it came to not getting credit for work that the Spanish benefited from---and then claimed the credit for themselves.

Just as the Jews were considered instrumental in discovering the New World, I have been amazed studying/seeing how the Moors were equally influential in their own way. For more information, I ever heard of the Olmecs?

The Olmecs have been mainly accepted as responsible for advanced civilization in the Americas....and the Mother Culture of all other Indigenious cultures in the Americas. Olmec heads, called "Negroid Statues" in the 1920's when they were found, have continued to baffle many since they have features that simply do not reflect the culture of the Indigineous peoples in the Americas...and resemble the features of those in Africa more so. One of the greatest anthropologists of all time has sought to do much work on the issue...and his name is Ivan Van Sertima. One excellent book on the issue that really blessed me was under the name of "They Came Before Columbus"

For more info, one can go online and look up his video presentation on "Google Video", under the name of "]"They came before Columbus - Dr Ivan Van Sertima


Ivan Van Sertima is a Guyanese historian, linguist and anthropologist ....and his work, "They Came Before Columbus", is a compelling and superbly detailed documentation of the presence and legacy of Africans in ancient America. Examining navigation and shipbuilding; cultural analogies between Native Americans and Africans; the transportation of plants, animals, and textiles between the continents; and the diaries, journals, and oral accounts of the explorers themselves, Ivan Van Sertima builds a pyramid of evidence to support his claim of an African presence in the New World centuries before Columbus. It was especially interesting to see the dynamics of the Moors, as it concerns some of the trade routes over the Atlantic they developed and how many have discussed that the rise of Eurocentric thought dominated much of history only after the age of Moorish domination in Spain for 400yrs prior.....alongside influence that happened in many differing European countries. Ivan in his book went into great detail telling of the sea routes Africans or Malian Moors were able to use to sail over here prior to Columbus, supporting the theory by the engravings found in the Cockaponset forest by John Gallager (Archeologist & Professor from Fordham University) and correlating it with the inscription found on the Haj Mimoun Rock in East Morocco and deciphered by Barry Fell, which records Moors (Blacks) being here a thousand years before Columbus

What Ivan and others have noted is that Columbus may've been aware of this--and although he also had the help of Jewish navigators/sailors, it is suspected that he may've stolen some of the maps used by the Moors on his journey....and once "discovering the New World", it set up a chain reaction in which all previous history was ignored in favor of making it seem as if only Europeans were the first. Some may not agree with it, but there's alot of support for what Ivan has noted.

Anyway, With all that was going on, and the fact that not everyone who left on the ships decided to settle on the islands, many continued with him to see new lands. I don't agree with his reasons for conquering, but it was a means to an end, to keep our people from being completely wiped out in the Spanish/Portugese lands.

I can relate to others who chose to flee/travel in order to survive and see what was out there, although I can never justify his reasons for conquest.

It is not something that seems allowed in scripture at any point for one claiming to believe in God/Jesus (As Columbus claimed)---and many evil things have been done with the mindset that it's merely a "means to an end"....for you don't start one Holocaust in order to address another. That will always cause more problems than necessary. What Columbus did toward those that were either West Indians or Native Americans via slavery and oppression to support his people is not something that should have ever occurred---and even if it was done to keep the Jews from dying off, what does that say about Jewish values? What does that say, moreover, about one's belief in God if resorting to conquest out of fear that one will perish...as opposed to looking unto the Lord for deliverance? I don't think he was a good reflection of that in the slightest since the message is plain that oppressing another ethnic group is always good as long as a valid reason can be suggested----but that logic never goes both ways since the group oppressing in order to survive will always say it is not fair when they get oppressed/are nearly wiped out by another who is in the same situation.

Living in peace and finding ways for mutual benefit for two groups is always the wisest route, IMHO....and Columbus should have done that. Had he decided to protect the Jews via becoming allies with the indigenious peoples he encountered---and having the Jews/them work together against the Power of Spain since Spain would later oppress both groups---who knows how things would have turned out? Both the Jews and the Indians were in bad situations and would have benefited from working together rather than playing by the rules of another dominant power....

Lots of history there, lots of little insights to be had.

I agree...and as the old saying goes, "The Devil's in the details"

As far as piracy goes, I can see where people would say it's a means to an end. I mean, even during the struggle before and during independence, there's been talk that there was a bit of piracy going on for the colonies, taking spoil from the crown. Mostly due to the injust taxes and the fact it was keeping many people on a level of poverty that they could not function on. It became a kind of "Robin Hood" method to keep people's heads above water - financially speaking.

On point..

Interesting to consider in light of others today who use the pirate theme from that era and apply it to themselves..as some don't pay taxes in the U.S because they feel it is neither Constitutional nor something that's right---and in their minds, though they're labeled as theives, they see it as justice. More was discussed here in #22

Would I personally participate? I don't rightly know. Never been in a situation where I had to make such stark choices really, and it'd be a very dangerous lifestyle... I could in theory see where it could work though

Right there with ya, as I don't know if I'd be up for the danger---even though I believe it could be adapted to if desperate enough. Thanks for sharing...

 

[MessianicMommy]

I can relate to others who chose to flee/travel in order to survive and see what was out there, although I can never justify his reasons for conquest. It is not something that seems allowed in scripture at any point for one claiming to believe in God/Jesus (As Columbus claimed)---and many evil things have been done with the mindset that it's merely a "means to an end"....for you don't start one Holocaust in order to address another. That will always cause more problems than necessary. What Columbus did toward those that were either West Indians or Native Americans via slavery and oppression to support his people is not something that should have ever occurred---and even if it was done to keep the Jews from dying off, what does that say about Jewish values? What does that say, moreover, about one's belief in God if resorting to conquest out of fear that one will perish...as opposed to looking unto the Lord for deliverance? I don't think he was a good reflection of that in the slightest since the message is plain that oppressing another ethnic group is always good as long as a valid reason can be suggested----but that logic never goes both ways since the group oppressing in order to survive will always say it is not fair when they get oppressed/are nearly wiped out by another who is in the same situation.

Living in peace and finding ways for mutual benefit for two groups is always the wisest route, IMHO....and Columbus should have done that. Had he decided to protect the Jews via becoming allies with the indigenious peoples he encountered---and having the Jews/them work together against the Power of Spain since Spain would later oppress both groups---who knows how things would have turned out?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm glad to know that what I said didn't come off the wrong way, as I was trying to be careful in what I was noting. Depending on one's view of history, an individual may see certain events as "destined"/fated or they may see things in the sense that the Lord chose to work it out after it played out according to what man did...even though he had another way that would've worked. Some could say that much of what occurs in existence and the severity brought about by human choices was a Divine Accident for things to have turned out as they did---but as God is the one in control of History and guides it toward His own ends, one must consider all possibilities. I see within scripture the theme that the Lord is guiding history to His Own ends ( Acts 17:25-27 ) even as He may let certain things play out.....with some events ordained and others simply a matter of chance ( Ecclesiastes 9:10-12 ) some of this discussed before in #72 & #142


Although I'm sadden by what occurred with the people in the New World, perhaps it was in Providence that both groups suffered and would learn to come together in the future. As not all Jews were in favor of it/resisted trying to claim that one group was meant to be enslaved/brutalized, the allowance of such to occur has done much today in strengthening the bond between Jews and other groups when it comes having history of shared oppression (as discussed here in #13 ), with the oppressed groups being able to impact the world in significant ways just as Joseph did in Egypt when looking back/realizing how his road was used by the Lord to put him into the position he was to save others even though it was nowhere near God's ideal with being sold into slavery by his own brothers-------and although it was not the best route to take when conquest occurred, I'm glad for how a Jewish prescence was kept alive in the New World provedintially for future purposes. I truly do believe that perhaps Columbus, the Jews sailing with him and the Natives of the New World would've been better off simply engaging in piracy against the Spanish Crown/others...akin to guerilla warfare. It worked many times for other groups, especially with black slaves and Indians when they'd form alliances/live in the territory that the Europeans were not familar with (as discussed here)---and combined with the efficiency that pirates had in keeping ships/groups at bay and the ways they were able to stay free due to knowing the terrain better than the empires, a 3-way alliance (i.e. Jews, Native Americans/West Indians, Black Slaves, etc) would have been amazing.


Sometimes, one must wonder what history would've looked like if things turned out differently..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Would I personally participate? I don't rightly know. Never been in a situation where I had to make such stark choices really, and it'd be a very dangerous lifestyle... I could in theory see where it could work though.

Wasn't certain of what your theory was as to how you felt it could work..though I'd be curious to see how. If it involves getting some weapons like those who are modern-day pirates, that'd make you even more wild than you already are

 

[Shimshon]

Outstanding work Easy G, as always. I have never considered Jewish Piracy, and those links were fascinating. Thank you for expanding my horizons once again.

I believe the crux of your question is would God accept or reject a robin hood persona? More specifically on the high seas? As well as the notion of taking from those who hoard and giving it to those who need?

In regards to being a pirate today, I don't think the western world takes kindly to competition. But in all seriousness, I think the heart of God is more played out in those who are robbed, and suffering, than those who take judgment, or vengence into their own hands. Though there is reason to pause on the notion that God does seem to focus on the greater good rather than the momentary sin. As in the saving of lives at the cost of another. Or even better yet, the giving of ones self in order that the other may live. Thus in essence committing suicide, which is not the will of God. Which of course leads to think about the atoning work of Yeshua on the cross.

Personally, I don't think out right piracy is the heart of God, but I don't think you do either. Though what would that say for the Maccabee's? And the Hammer of Judah! Of course God allows self-defense? Or self-preservation?

This is where I have always wound up in talks with pastors and rabbi's. Which is more important? defending yourself, or allowing God to do what he will with your life? Do you try to self-preserve your soul, or do you count on God to keep you through all things? And if you try to self-preserve, would that not make you doing something in your own power, and not God's?

Would it be God's will to have 'you' preserve your life, or Him? Now, does that mean I can walk into a locomotive and expect to live? I think not.

But, back to the notion of being a pirate, and still remaining Jewish, and in the will of God. I think I can understand your romance to the pirate life. My father, who was bar mitzvah'ed and raised till weened by Jewish parents, became a biker, 1%. And I spent most my teen years hang'n with dad after the divorce. Even before I was sent along with him as a safety pin. Which didn't really work much to my mothers anguish. At first I embraced the lifestyle, it wasn't hard since dad was living it. But after my grandfather passed in my late 20's I packed up my hog and rode off swearing never to follow in my fathers footsteps.

What's so screwed up is I embraced being a biker much to my grandfather's dismay. But after he passed is when I rejected it for good, and he never knew that. He hated bikes with a passion. And the fact that his son became a 1% biker caused arguments till the day he died.

My point, I don't romanticize about being a pirate/biker. I've seen the life, the people. I spend too much time being raised around them, and within them. I moved on, by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit. I've always been and independent and always will. I ride the road alone. And have, all over the west. But I gave up my bike 7yrs ago. For my family. I sold it back to my father who helped me get it put together. Now he complains at 71 that the ridged is too hard for him...LOL

Now, more to the point about survival, and self-preservation. Would I defend my family, you bet! Would I defend a community of like minded individuals who've banded together for the common good, you bet. However, you have to consider the very real concern of 'who is judge'? How do you determine who is right and who is wrong? Who to rob and who to give to? Who to kill and who to let live? Very real concerns because it determines your outcome with the living God who will judge all actions not done by himself.

In this manner have I determined that it is better to give than to take, even at the cost of death. And that blessing your enemies far out weighs taking them down with the temple, me included.

Bruh, I have desired to rebel against all that I have encountered my whole life. Till I met Yeshua. Then I heard, believed, and received, and submitted my life as an offering to God. He always was telling me too, but I finally accepted it.

Sometimes I still feel like a rebel, when I get accused of rebelling against the Law of God! LOL But I know the One who is in me. And I believe the One he sent. Till death do us meet.

I pray God through his Spirit will not only protect me from needing to commit piracy, but will also lead me to do that which is in his will for that time. And that I may submit to it, in full. Time will tell, no?

I think I'm in the same place as you my friend.

My mother is also 1/2 dutch, 1st generation american, yep, Dutch Puerto Rican. I often wonder how I would have reacted to the atrocities my Dutch grandmother saw and went through in the Netherlands during wwII. Honestly, I think I would fight back rather than be rounded up. Her house was bombed and they hid Jews from the Nazi's. I remember one time she softly yelled at me to turn the channel from 'Hogan's Hero's' because she said she found it disgusting that people could make light of what went on there the way they were.

But most of all I can hear my grandfather and everyone in my family saying it's better to walk way than to fight. But what if there is no where to walk? That is where my above prayer comes into play, again.

Again, thanks for the links, I'm going to continue to explore them. And just maybe my ramblings will lead you to ponder more on your question.
Peace

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Outstanding work Easy G, as always. I have never considered Jewish Piracy, and those links were fascinating. Thank you for expanding my horizons once again.

Glad to know the info was stimulating for your mind/gave food for thought..

I believe the crux of your question is would God accept or reject a robin hood persona? More specifically on the high seas? As well as the notion of taking from those who hoard and giving it to those who need?

Actually, although the "Robin Hood" on the high seas is apart of the question I asked, it's more broad to include doing anything that may be deemed as "illegal" by a dominant group when it seems that what the dominant group decides is not truly allowing for justice to occur. In example, would be it cool to be labeled as a "thief" because one chose not to give a percentage of their crops/food to a nation or empire because of how they saw the empire utilizing their resources not for helping the people they served? If they took from the organizations that were essentially "stealing " from the people/misuing materials so that women and children were harmed, how would one address that?

For another example, smuggling goods into nations (i.e. food, clothing, material, etc)--an act of piracy---be something that needed to be condemned if one was doing it in line with what the Lord noted in serving His people rather than what men desired? The Underground Railroad is a famous example of what comes to mind too....very close to home for me personally (As a person of Color) when it comes to the ways slaves were smuggled out from the lands of their slave masters/delivered to freedom secretly--with raids somethings occurring. The freeing of slaves was viewed as stealing slave owners' personal property....and it was made worse whenever an owner's property was damaged in order to protect those abused in slavery, or slaves stole food from local food reserves to survive the trip.

As said best at Slave Resistance, Freedom's Story, TeacherServe®, National ...:

One common form of slave resistance was theft. Slaves pilfered fruits, vegetables, livestock, tobacco, liquor, and money from their masters. The theft of foodstuffs was especially common and was justified on several grounds. First, slave rations were often woefully inadequate in providing the nutrition and calories necessary to support the daily exertions of plantation labor. Hungry slaves reasoned that the master’s abundance should be shared with those who produced it. Second, slaves recognized the inherent contradiction of the master’s “theft” accusations. How could slaves, who were themselves the master’s property, “steal” anything that the master owned? After all, the master’s ownership claims over the slave meant that he owned everything that the slave “owned.” When a slave staked claim to a master’s chicken, he merely transferred it to his stomach, or as Frederick Douglass put it, the slave was simply “taking [the master’s] meat out of one tub and putting it in another
​

For more:

• Slavery, Resistance, and Flight
• Underground Railroad: A Path to Freedom
• The Underground Railroad . Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House ...

Where these things may occur today when it comes to human trafficking today or freeing others trapped in certain lifestyles and denied justice, the subject becomes a very relevant issue (IMHO)...and the backdrop of what occurred with Jewish pirates is something I thought would be a good springboard for many other occurrences since they often had to do similar things in protecting their own people.

In regards to being a pirate today, I don't think the western world takes kindly to competition.

Ironic to consider in light of how it is built upon it--and if/when studying historical examples of where many communities and their buisnesses were literally destroyed due to becoming competitive enough with the majority (such as in Greenwood, Oklahoma, with "Black Wall Street"/the enormous massacre of blacks, for example), it's sad to see when property was stolen and then "owned" by those who took it...and then those fighting to take it back were deemed "criminal."

But in all seriousness, I think the heart of God is more played out in those who are robbed, and suffering, than those who take judgment, or vengence into their own hands. Though there is reason to pause on the notion that God does seem to focus on the greater good rather than the momentary sin. As in the saving of lives at the cost of another. Or even better yet, the giving of ones self in order that the other may live. Thus in essence committing suicide, which is not the will of God. Which of course leads to think about the atoning work of Yeshua on the cross.

Interesting points altogteher....

Personally, I don't think out right piracy is the heart of God, but I don't think you do either. Though what would that say for the Maccabee's? And the Hammer of Judah! Of course God allows self-defense? Or self-preservation?


This is where I have always wound up in talks with pastors and rabbi's. Which is more important? defending yourself, or allowing God to do what he will with your life? Do you try to self-preserve your soul, or do you count on God to keep you through all things? And if you try to self-preserve, would that not make you doing something in your own power, and not God's?

Some of what you noted was actually in line with things I was seeking to address earlier when it came to examining what the Torah gives as examples for the Lord's people and how it seemed that some instances of piracy were justified---in regards to what another poster asked when bringing up the question of what is the difference between stealing and "taking spoils" ( #28 ).

As said before, if you believe that the Torah still allows for God's people to fight back physically against those who are enemies of God when they attack us (as discussed here in Chanakuh, Pacifism and Presentations of Christ as a Militant on the subject of Maccabees and the Zealots in relation to the message of Christ.), things get even more interesting since it'd seem that many would perhaps have the right to choose the life of piracy. Seeing what Christ said, I don't really see many things as a matter of comparision in some instances---as it wouldn't be a matter of asking if it was greater to let your life be taken or defend oneselve if innocent lives were at stake---and you were charged by the Lord to protect/provide for them. And the same thing goes for self-preseveration if it meant being around for the Lord to use you in aiding the community as He desired. Every situation and circumstance is different---but many times, the choices seem to be clear.

Would it be God's will to have 'you' preserve your life, or Him? Now, does that mean I can walk into a locomotive and expect to live? I think not.

Indeed..

But, back to the notion of being a pirate, and still remaining Jewish, and in the will of God. I think I can understand your romance to the pirate life. My father, who was bar mitzvah'ed and raised till weened by Jewish parents, became a biker, 1%. And I spent most my teen years hang'n with dad after the divorce. Even before I was sent along with him as a safety pin. Which didn't really work much to my mothers anguish. At first I embraced the lifestyle, it wasn't hard since dad was living it. But after my grandfather passed in my late 20's I packed up my hog and rode off swearing never to follow in my fathers footsteps.


What's so screwed up is I embraced being a biker much to my grandfather's dismay. But after he passed is when I rejected it for good, and he never knew that. He hated bikes with a passion. And the fact that his son became a 1% biker caused arguments till the day he died.


My point, I don't romanticize about being a pirate/biker. I've seen the life, the people. I spend too much time being raised around them, and within them. I moved on, by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit. I've always been and independent and always will. I ride the road alone. And have, all over the west. But I gave up my bike 7yrs ago. For my family. I sold it back to my father who helped me get it put together. Now he complains at 71 that the ridged is too hard for him...LOL

Wild story, Bruh

I think, on the subject of biking (as it relates to pirates), that there are variations of it which are often left out---and with biking, there are many aspects of it which are very detrimental while there are others which are amazing. One of my friends whom I was able to meet at a Men's Meeting was actually apart of a fellowship/church that was made up of bikers called God's Rolling ThunderPowerful men/women of God and amazing people. Many of them were missionaries traveling the road and reaching out to others who were involved in the same lifestyles.. And there are many others out there which are like it. Of course, what they do is radically different from what occurs in the world of underground motorcycle clubs -or others involved in Biker clubs (i.e. Hell's Angels) that do ALOT of damage to others.

It's the same way with pirates. For as said earlier in the thread, in no way is it the intention of the OP to make it out as if all aspects of a Pirate Lifestyle were ever to be idolaized or romanticised in any way since there were PLENTY of pirates (Jewish ones included) who were some of the darkest and most evil characters around....raiding/pillaging and destroying others without warrant and for the sake of it. The same still occurs today sadly...and those of the same mindset are never to be condoned.

Even in regards to the OP Topic of Sephardic Jewish pirates, caution must be used since many who were Jewish pirates were killers and thieves, and often slave traders as one Jewish review said on the topic in critique. Trying to make it out as if a Pirate Lifestyle was truly wonderful would be silly, as it was dangerous in many ways/not the preference for all scenarios...and many did horrible things in the name of piracy, although they're actions are also not to be taken as the normative representation of what pirate lifestyles were like. The world of piracy and other activities related to it (such as smuggling) came in a variety of shapes/sizes...

Now, more to the point about survival, and self-preservation. Would I defend my family, you bet! Would I defend a community of like minded individuals who've banded together for the common good, you bet. However, you have to consider the very real concern of 'who is judge'? How do you determine who is right and who is wrong? Who to rob and who to give to? Who to kill and who to let live? Very real concerns because it determines your outcome with the living God who will judge all actions not done by himself.

Real talk...and good things to consider. Sometimes, it's easier to label someone as an enemy/justify why you do something to them than it is to find out what defines "right" or "wrong"-and remember that you'll have to live with the consequences if you get it wrong. Better know before you fight if the battle's truly worth fighting for...

In this manner have I determined that it is better to give than to take, even at the cost of death. And that blessing your enemies far out weighs taking them down with the temple, me included.

To each his own and each one must be fully convinced in their minds of what it is that is the right thing to do...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Bruh, I have desired to rebel against all that I have encountered my whole life. Till I met Yeshua. Then I heard, believed, and received, and submitted my life as an offering to God. He always was telling me too, but I finally accepted it.

Sometimes I still feel like a rebel, when I get accused of rebelling against the Law of God! LOL

Ha

But I know the One who is in me. And I believe the One he sent. Till death do us meet.


I pray God through his Spirit will not only protect me from needing to commit piracy, but will also lead me to do that which is in his will for that time. And that I may submit to it, in full. Time will tell, no?

I think I'm in the same place as you my friend.

Wherever the Lord leads, be it for or against piracy/other things no one would resort to without prayer and guidance....by His Spirit.

My mother is also 1/2 dutch, 1st generation american, yep, Dutch Puerto Rican. I often wonder how I would have reacted to the atrocities my Dutch grandmother saw and went through in the Netherlands during wwII. Honestly, I think I would fight back rather than be rounded up. Her house was bombed and they hid Jews from the Nazi's. I remember one time she softly yelled at me to turn the channel from 'Hogan's Hero's' because she said she found it disgusting that people could make light of what went on there the way they were.


But most of all I can hear my grandfather and everyone in my family saying it's better to walk way than to fight. But what if there is no where to walk? That is where my above prayer comes into play, again.

/QUOTE

]Definately can relate to that, in regards to what to do when it happens to be nowhere else to go.and amazing to see how your grandfather still wanted to pursue peace...

Again, thanks for the links, I'm going to continue to explore them. And just maybe my ramblings will lead you to ponder more on your question.
Peace

Shalom...

 

[Shimshon]

You know Easy, I can't help but keep being reminded about David and is acts of piracy against the kingdom of Saul and the Amalekites in the book of Samuel. Seems David did not think it was the will of God to attack 'the anointed' of God, but when dwelling in the land of the philistines in exile his MO was quite pirate like, no?

David Defeats the Amalekites
16 And when he had taken him down, behold, they were spread abroad over all the land, eating and drinking and dancing, because of all the great spoil they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah. 17 And David struck them down from twilight until the evening of the next day, and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men, who mounted camels and fled. 18 David recovered all that the Amalekites had taken, and David rescued his two wives. 19 Nothing was missing, whether small or great, sons or daughters, spoil or anything that had been taken. David brought back all. 20 David also captured all the flocks and herds, and the people drove the livestock before him, and said, "This is David's spoil."

David took spoils from his engagements.

22 Then all the wicked and worthless fellows among the men who had gone with David said, "Because they did not go with us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we have recovered, except that each man may lead away his wife and children, and depart."

23 But David said, "You shall not do so, my brothers, with what the LORD has given us. He has preserved us and given into our hand the band that came against us. 24 Who would listen to you in this matter? For as his share is who goes down into the battle, so shall his share be who stays by the baggage. They shall share alike."

25 And he made it a statute and a rule for Israel from that day forward to this day. 26 When David came to Ziklag, he sent part of the spoil to his friends, the elders of Judah, saying, "Here is a present for you from the spoil of the enemies of the LORD."

Pirates of the Plishtim.....

He would also defend the cities of the Philistines from the attacking Amalekites. And again his MO was quite pirate like.

8 Now David and his men went up and made raids against the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites, for these were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as far as Shur, to the land of Egypt. 9 And David would strike the land and would leave neither man nor woman alive, but would take away the sheep, the oxen, the donkeys, the camels, and the garments, and come back to Achish. 10 When Achish asked, "Where have you made a raid today?" David would say, "Against the Negeb of Judah," or, "Against the Negeb of the Jerahmeelites," or, "Against the Negeb of the Kenites." 11 And David would leave neither man nor woman alive to bring news to Gath, thinking, "lest they should tell about us and say, 'So David has done.'" Such was his custom all the while he lived in the country of the Philistines. 12 And Achish trusted David, thinking, "He has made himself an utter stench to his people Israel; therefore he shall always be my servant."

Before he was chased out of Yisrael he did not return attack from Saul, he always fled away from his evilness. Did David attack Saul's soldiers for killing the priests? Did he preemptively attack them to prevent such atrocities? Or did he flee into exile? He fled away from the evil and knew God would take care of it. David knew not to repay evil for evil. He spared Saul twice, in hopes of reconciliation more than likely. But that was not what God had intended for them.

But after he fled to the Philistines he even desired to war with King Achish of Gath against Yisrael. But the troops didn't trust David going into battle with them against his own people. So he stayed back, and rescues his own people from the Amalekites that destroy his town Ziklag.

Was David living out his pirate youth in the land of the Philistines?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You know Easy, I can't help but keep being reminded about David and is acts of piracy against the kingdom of Saul and the Amalekites in the book of Samuel.

Excellent person to study on the topic, as he did so QUITE frequently in a myriad of ways.

Seems David did not think it was the will of God to attack 'the anointed' of God, but when dwelling in the land of the philistines in exile his MO was quite pirate like, no?

1 Samuel 30
David Defeats the Amalekites

16 And when he had taken him down, behold, they were spread abroad over all the land, eating and drinking and dancing, because of all the great spoil they had taken from the land of the Philistines and from the land of Judah. 17 And David struck them down from twilight until the evening of the next day, and not a man of them escaped, except four hundred young men, who mounted camels and fled. 18 David recovered all that the Amalekites had taken, and David rescued his two wives. 19 Nothing was missing, whether small or great, sons or daughters, spoil or anything that had been taken. David brought back all. 20 David also captured all the flocks and herds, and the people drove the livestock before him, and said, "This is David's spoil."​

​

David took spoils from his engagements.

Yep..

Outside of I Samuel 30, as said earlier in the thread -in regards to what another poster asked when bringing up the question of what is the difference between stealing and "taking spoils" ( #28 ), the same theme occurs throughout the Torah ( 1 Samuel 17:52-54 / ,1 Samuel 30:25-27/ , 2 Samuel 12:29-31 /, 2 Kings 7:1/2 Kings 7:15-17 , 1 Chronicles 20:1-3 . 1 Chronicles 26:26-28 , , 2 Chronicles 14:12-14/, 2 Chronicles 15:10-12 /, 2 Chronicles 20:24-26 /, 2 Chronicles 28:14-16/ ) that at multiple points/on multiple levels, the soldiers who were involved in fighting what they deemed to be "just wars" against others were to give part of the plunder they found unto the Lord---and yet, they were also allowed to essentially "keep the rest of the booty" for themselves.

Pirates of the Plishtim.....

Fitting term for it...

He would also defend the cities of the Philistines from the attacking Amalekites. And again his MO was quite pirate like.

1 Samuel 27

David Among the Philistines

1 But David thought to himself, “One of these days I will be destroyed by the hand of Saul. The best thing I can do is to escape to the land of the Philistines. Then Saul will give up searching for me anywhere in Israel, and I will slip out of his hand.”


2 So David and the six hundred men with him left and went over to Achish son of Maok king of Gath. 3 David and his men settled in Gath with Achish. Each man had his family with him, and David had his two wives: Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail of Carmel, the widow of Nabal. 4 When Saul was told that David had fled to Gath, he no longer searched for him.

5 Then David said to Achish, “If I have found favor in your eyes, let a place be assigned to me in one of the country towns, that I may live there. Why should your servant live in the royal city with you?”

6 So on that day Achish gave him Ziklag, and it has belonged to the kings of Judah ever since. 7 David lived in Philistine territory a year and four months.

8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.

10 When Achish asked, “Where did you go raiding today?” David would say, “Against the Negev of Judah” or “Against the Negev of Jerahmeel” or “Against the Negev of the Kenites.” 11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, “They might inform on us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, “He has become so obnoxious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life.”



​

Some of the history with the Philistines is interesting when considering David's status with them. In I Samuel 29, the other Philistine officers were going to war against Israel..and the text says that David was marching with them at the rear with his men. The other Philistine commanders knew that David was the one who, as a young man, had killed their champion, Goliath (I Samuel 17:32-54), had killed hundreds of Philistine soldiers (I Samuel 18:27), and was the hero of the Israelite victory songs ( I Samuel 21:11). Even when on the run from Saul, he had previously been starting raids against Philistine encampments as if he were still on duty---such as what happened when he saved Keilah from the Philistines, the land he fled to running from Saul ( 1 Samuel 23 ). They were afraid that, in the heat of battle, David might turn against them.....and I wouldn't blame them seeing how David was essentially a mercenary during his time away from Saul.

David was upset at this at first, as seen in I Samuel 29:6-9, but God used the commanders' suspicion to keep him from having to fight against SAul and his countreymen. To see that is interesting in light of what I Samuel 28:102 notes when Achish asked David to fight against Saul in battle and David agreed, saying "Then you shall see what your servant can do"---and Achish made David his bodyguard for life. Achish's request put David in a difficult position. For to refuse to help Achish fight the Israelites would give away David's loyalty to Israel and endanger the lives of his soldiers and family. But to fight his own people would hurt the very people he loved.

David never had to solve his dilemma because God protected him....and the other Philitine leader's objection to his prescence in battle may've been a means of Divine Providence on the behalf of David.



The turn of events is rather fascinating since I Samuel 27 notes that David sought to hide out in the land of the Philistines. The instance with I Samuel 27 is actually the second time he did so, as he also sought refuge in I Samuel 21:10-15 when he acted as if he was insane before the king. For the Philistines, accepting their archenemy may have made them initially happy since it'd be akin to accepting a defector who was a high military leader. Any enemy of SAul would have been a friend of theirs. They could not have known that David had been anointed Israel's next king (I Samuel 16:3)......and with David acting insane during the first instance, it was beneficial since it was the custom not to harm unstable people.

With the second instance of David going into Philistine territory to flee from Saul, David hired himself out to the services of the Philistines and sought permission to live under the protection of King Achish of Gath. ALthough DAvid had previously acted insane---right after making Psalm 34, ironically, about blessing the Lord/trusting in Him to bring deliverance --evidently, Achish had forgotten that incident or had tried to overlook it in light of DAvid's current situation.

Achish certainly would have known about the split between Saul and David and would have been glad to shelter this Israelite traitor. In return, Achish would have expected military support from David and his 600 warriors.....the Mighty Men referred to in scripture who were NO JOKE ( 2 Samuel 23 /1 Chronicles 11 ). They all knew how to live on the edge, as those forming David's army came to him while on the run from Saul. As scripture ( 1 Samuel 22:1-3 /1 Samuel 22 ) says concerning David's escape from Gath to the cave of Adullam, "All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their commander. About four hundred men were with him." To have such a great fighting force that had been around David for years was a big benefit to King Achish, as he had others who truly understood the make-up of his enemy's kingdom.

David further strengthened his position with Achish by leading Achish to believe that he was conducting raids on Israel and by pretending loyalty to the Philistine leader. Although Saul had finally stopped pursuing David at the time (after two attempts on his life and sparring Saul Twice), Saul's army was not strong enough to invade Philistine territory just to seek one man....should Saul have reverted to old habits of chasing after David.

In I Samuel 27:5-7, what's fascinating is David's decisions for travel. Gath was one of the five principal cities in Phillistia and Achish was one of the five co-rulers. David may've wanted to move out of this important city in order to avoid potential skirmishes or attacks upon his family. He may have also wanted to escape the close scrutinty of the Philistine officers. Achish let DAVID MOVE to Ziklag where he lived unti Saul's death (II Samuel 2:1).

I Samuel 27:8-9 is also fascinating when considering the raids he did on other groups--the Geshurites, Girzites and the Amalekites. David probably conducted these guerilla-style raids beause these three tribes were known for their surprise attacks and cruel treatment upon innocent people. These desert tribes were a danger not just to the Philistines, but especially to the Israelites, the people David would one day lead. While David was raiding these groups, he lied to Achish about his activities with them. Was David wrong in falsely reporting his activities? I'd say no because he may have felt justified in a time of war against a pagan enemy. DAvid knew he would one day be king of Israel...and the Philistines were still Israel's enemy, but this would be an excellent place to hide from Saul.

When Achish asked David to go battle against Saul in I Samuel 27:10-12, David agreed and pretended loyalty to the Philistines--and to a degree, perhaps having a bit of tolerance for them when it came to the larger goal he may've had. As the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend, not my enemy.."....and it does seem David was very much a pragmatist. Although he was essentially a Double-Agent, he was still able to remain true to his vision of helping Israel while being at peace helping the Philistines in achieving some of their goals.


In many ways, the way he acted seemed very much akin to what occurred within "Pirates of the Caribbean" when it came to the issue of how the general Pirate Code when it came to essentially having morality defined by what was deemed reasonable at the moment...and not being legalistic with the rules given without seeing what the need of the moment may be. There was actually an excellent article on that very issue which you may find interesting, entitled Why Stories Work | Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black ...In the same way that the pirates deemed their Pirate Code (in the immortal tone of Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa) as "more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules", it seems that David similarly had a mindset that said what the Lord explicitly wanted wasn't always defined in the means of getting there. Although some things were clear-cut, such as not killing the Lord's anointed, what happened along the way was often left up in the air....and some of that could easily be within the category of Biblical warrant. Some of this was discussed more so elsewhere, such as here in #2 #3 , #4 and #5. As said there, the Law says "Thou shall not bear false witness" in the 10 commandments, yet David Lied alongside others such as Rahab and others in the Biblical text to save lives..and in doing so, they didn't violate the Spirit of the Law. Those with a more legalistic mindset would say they were in total error---but as reason/preserving life was the way the Law was meant to be interpreted as, some things were to be allowed. David had such a mindset---and whereas some could say he was "breaking all the rules", some could say he was actually following them in a way that still kept true while not necessarily following the letter.



David was quite the Pirate indeed, IMHO

Before he was chased out of Yisrael he did not return attack from Saul, he always fled away from his evilness. Did David attack Saul's soldiers for killing the priests? Did he preemptively attack them to prevent such atrocities? Or did he flee into exile? He fled away from the evil and knew God would take care of it. David knew not to repay evil for evil. He spared Saul twice, in hopes of reconciliation more than likely. But that was not what God had intended for them.


But after he fled to the Philistines he even desired to war with King Achish of Gath against Yisrael. But the troops didn't trust David going into battle with them against his own people. So he stayed back, and rescues his own people from the Amalekites that destroy his town Ziklag.

Was David living out his pirate youth in the land of the Philistines

I'd definately say that David in many ways was the greatest example of one who is the IDEAL pirate---a just one and one who is truly conflicted on many things while doing what he had to do...and not harming his people while also trying to find ways to creatively help them out as well as helping his enemies on goals he felt he needed to compromise on.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

David knew not to repay evil for evil. He spared Saul twice, in hopes of reconciliation more than likely. But that was not what God had intended for them.

But after he fled to the Philistines he even desired to war with King Achish of Gath against Yisrael. But the troops didn't trust David going into battle with them against his own people. So he stayed back, and rescues his own people from the Amalekites that destroy his town Ziklag.

Was David living out his pirate youth in the land of the Philistines?

That David rescued his own people from the Amalekities is not surprising since he had already been raiding them during his time amongst the Philistines---doing them a favor since the Amalekites and Philistines fought one another anyhow (even though the Philistines were really wanting him to do raids against Israel). And with David, he was technically legal in attacking the Amalekites since he was given Ziklag as a town to live in within Philistine territory. Although the Philistines didn't know David had been attacking Amalekites previously, what the Amalekites did to David would have been portrayed in the eyes of the Philistines as undeserved/unprovoked cause for attack...and David would have been free to attack them while also having his cover kept with the Philistines.


Pretty hard-core....and necessary. Piracy was what was necessary at the time--and to be more specific, what David did was technically known as being a privateer or corsair, as they used similar methods to a pirate, but acted while in possession of a commission or letter of marque from a government or monarch authorizing the capture of merchant ships belonging to an enemy nation (i.e. legal raiders). A goos question to ask, IMHO, is whether or not you and I would've done the same if like David.