Before the OT was written that we can be sure of. Since those are the values within the OT. Who gives a fuck about a specific date of when the transvaluation occurred. The fact is that it did occur, and it occurred over an era of time.

When was the exact day you were conceived by your father and mother fucking? If you don’t know then obviously it didn't happen is basically what you're saying... not a very well thought out question or critique.

I'm sure you can say it happened roughly 9 months beforehand... but that's not the exact time stamp... and who really gives a fuck about when your timestamp of conception actually was?

I'm not asking for a specific date. Can you put it within a century or two? Or just give me a name of a biblical figure.

sure 1-2 centuries before the OT was expressed as a table of categorical values.

There's a way of approaching myths, much in evidence in this thread, in which the myth is taken as true. It follows, of course, that anything that counts against the myth being true must be false. It remains only to point out this falsehood, and to explain it in any way - but further, if that explanation is found wanting, there must be another explanation. Becasue, after all, the myth is true.

Ok so during their time in slavery the Jews began hating all that is beautiful and noble.

I'll stop here because I know better than to question your Bible.

(My Bible is a little more open to questioning btw but I digress...)

...or rather than face the inherent inconsistency in the myth, folk might burry it, like a cat in the litter tray, in dissertation and interpretation. Hermeneutics is especially useful here. Interpretation becomes a way of never facing the problem head-on. Instead of acknowledging genuine tensions or incoherencies, the myth is protected by an infinite regress of meaning-making.

It’s a genealogy my man, and the Bible outside the Gospels has little to do with Jesus. Besides the last time you quoted the Gospels against me, you kinda punched yourself in the face. As ithe quote stated, those who follow God's laws will be known as the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, whereas those who don't follow God's laws will be known as least in the kingdom of heaven... keyword IN the Kingdom of Heaven... cause Jesus represents God's undying grace and loves everyone, including towards those who would shove a spear through him.

The fuck do you think undying grace means?

Man, I'm just trying to step into your world, that's all. Learn a bit about the Jews.

So I guess it goes something like this: The slaves in Egypt start their values revolution and begin hating all things noble and beautiful and strong. ~1400 years later at the time of Jesus this is what the Pharisees are. The Pharisees also detest beauty and strength as they are the ancestors of these slaves.

But Jesus doesn't. Jesus tells them to not build a value system based on resentment and the Pharisees hate that so they persecute him.

Is that the gist of it?

I mean, sure, but I'm not the most well versed in Bible study, but when a bunch of Jewish scholars find repose within Nietzsche's Genealogy, to overcome the source of bad conscience that was driving them to a schizophrenic existence, I'm going to assume there is accuracy there since Jews are always like "you're not a Jew so you wouldn't know..." Okay, well, these intellectual elite Jews would know then, and they advocate and appropriate Nietzsche Genealogy and Psychology and used it in the relaunching of Zionism in the 1890s (which was vastly different than the late 1940s Zionism).

Okay, so they want to appeal to authority. Let's see what the authority says... Oh, whats this? They approve and appropriate from his works? Now, does that mean all Jews agree? No. But he certainly was a massive influence on early Zionist/Zionism and Jewish psychoanalysts.

Early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. Berdichevski, Brunner, Popper-Lynkeus, Lessing, Herzl, Buber, Chomsky, Zeitlin... the list goes on. Then all that was thrown to the wayside after the Nakba in 1948. Nationalism and self determinism for Jews became it's beck and call.

Could I be wrong for believing all these pre 1940s Zionist? Sure. But then they too would be wrong about their own history and culture and probably shouldn't be considered as intellectual elites.

Early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. Berdichevski, Brunner, Popper-Lynkeus, Lessing, Herzl, Buber, Chomsky, Zeitlin... the list goes on. — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't know where you get this notion, but it has no relationship with reality. Of course history is very complicated - and there were numerous variants of Zionism, but here is the basic outlines of the first Zionist Congress in 1897:

"The program set out the goals of the Zionist movement as follows:[5]

Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law.[6]
To achieve this goal, the Congress envisages the following means:

1. The expedient promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine.
2. The organization and bringing together of all Jews through local and general events, according to the laws of the various countries.
3. The strengthening of Jewish feeling and national consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps for obtaining the governmental approval which is necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose."

I get it from Zionist philosophers, not a 7 man swiss committee making propositions on land, you'll notice none of the names I mentioned are even on that committee.

Heck people on that committee like Brinbaum even became anti-Zionists...

Bodenheimer joined the revisionist party of Zionism founded by Jabotinsky—

Jabotinsky's writings state, "we do not want to eject even one Arab from either the left or the right bank of the Jordan River. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally. We envision the regime of Jewish Palestine [Eretz Israel ha-Ivri, or the 'Jewish Land of Israel'] as follows: most of the population will be Jewish, but equal rights for all Arab citizens will not only be guaranteed, they will also be fulfilled."

Indeed, and the idea that the wretched, slaves, etc. were in their place precisely because they were wicked was obviously a popular opinion amongst the ancient Jews, since so many texts feel the need to weigh in on it. But that view is almost the opposite of the view being ascribed to the Jews here.

It certainly seems more appropriate to the Gospels (far less to Islam), yet it doesn't seem particularly in line with ancient Christianity either. It seems most in line with more class conscious 19th century German Protestantism, and it seems to me that these sentiments are being backwards projected onto "the Jews."

I will give Nietzsche the benefit of the doubt here though and assume he is not primarily thinking of the fairly warrior-centric Hebrew culture of Joshua and Judges though, and more of later periods. The problem though is that Maccabees isn't that different.

The irony here is that atheist, secular historians highly doubt the Jews were ever slaves.

This attempt to make sense of all senseless and useless suffering can (as we already have seen) occur in two ways. Either guilt is attributed to “someone else,” or one looks for the blame in oneself.

It is one of the deepest and most certain principles of national psychology that the Jewish people are the first—and perhaps the only—nation that has only sought solely within themselves the blame for world events.

Jewish doctrine has, since ancient times, responded to the question “Why are we not loved?” with “Because we are guilty.” Many great Jewish thinkers have perceived the central core of Jewish teaching in this formula “Because we are guilty” and in the experience of Jewish communal attribution of guilt and communal responsibility.

It's important for the reader to realize that, as in the viddui, the key to the pathology of our national consciousness lies in this acknowledgment of guilt, emphasized in the mighty Judeo-Christian ethic.

There is only one emergency exit—to make sense of this suffering and make it bearable the Jew must believe that his fate has within it a particular purpose: “God disciplines those he loves.” Within this concept of suffering as punishment lies the beginning of understanding the concept of Jewish “self-hate.”

It is different among happy, victorious peoples. They have no reason for self-flagellating, self-tormenting analysis that endangers a healthy attitude toward life and naturalself-esteem. They answer “Why does misfortune happen to us?” with a forceful accusation against those who, in their opinion, caused the misfortune.

The Jewish situation is thereby doubly endangered. First, because the Jew repliesto the question “Why are we not loved?” with “Because we are guilty.” Second, because other nations answer the question “Why are the Jews not loved?” with “He says so himself—he is guilty." — Theodore Lessing, Jewish Self-Hate.

It is this internalization that causes within the weak, feelings of ressentiment, and bad conscience and being responsible for said shame and guilt. This is the pathology of Judaism—its own backbiting virtue.

But make no mistake, it is this very notion that makes Jews leaders in many fields, as they hold themselves accountable. Because the number one aspect of a strong leader is accountability.

The weak, however, outnumber the strong more than 1000 to 1.

This is the pathology that Nietzsche details to the Jew, before assigning to them a mission to revamp European communities. Which is what Zionism aimed to accomplish pre 1948.

It is this internalization that causes within the weak, feelings of ressentiment, and bad conscience and being responsible for said shame and guilt. This is the pathology of Judaism—its own backbiting virtue. — DifferentiatingEgg

Your post as it stands can be read as follows:

“The weak” are those who have a conscious and who via its quiet affirmations experience shame and guilt for wrongdoings.

“The strong”, in turn, must then be those devoid of a conscious and who thereby experience no shame or guilt for any wrongdoing whatsoever (maybe not even recognizing that the concept of wrongdoing can apply to them).

This would literally translate into: psychopaths * are the strong while non-psychopaths are the weak … with the story often enough going around that the weak – as mandated either by God or by Nature – ought to be subjugated by the strong.

* As to technical definitions:

Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality,[1] is a personality construct[2][3] characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, along with bold, disinhibited, and egocentric traits. These traits are often masked by superficial charm and immunity to stress,[4] which create an outward appearance of apparent normalcy.[5][6][7][8][9] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

--------

The weak, however, outnumber the strong more than 1000 to 1.

This is the pathology that Nietzsche details to the Jew, before assigning to them a mission to revamp European communities. — DifferentiatingEgg

It's been a while since my reading of him, granted, but this is not the Nietzsche I know of, limited as my knowledge of him is, who I’m guessing would have for example likely kicked Hitler in the groin where he to have been around – as painfully as possible, if not worse – and who can be quoted as admiring the Jewish community at large. As one example of this, with this one quote given with special emphasis on “weakness vs strength” as pertains to Jews:

“The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favorable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices—” — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

As far as I can see, you’re sort of giving Nietzsche a bad name here, this by purporting him to have upheld the opposite of what Nietzsche wrote. While he does have mixed views regarding just about every so-called race of people out there - German, English, etc.,, with Jews as no exception - as far as I know he is well enough recognized to have been an anti-antisemite. And Nietzsche desired for Jewish assimilation into Europe – rather then for their segregation (be it in the lands of Zion or somewhere else). To evidence this, here is an extension of the previously given Nietzsche quote from a different source with commentary (you have to search through the reference to find it, but you can use "find in page" as a shortcut):

"The fact that the Jews, if they wanted (or if they were forced, as the anti-Semites seem to want), could already be dominant, or indeed could literally have control over present-day Europe—this is established. The fact that they are not working and making plans to this end is likewise established….[W]hat they wish and want instead…is to be absorbed and assimilated into Europe…in which case it might be practical and appropriate to throw the anti-Semitic hooligans out of the country…."

This passage exemplifies Nietzsche’s typical contempt for Germans, and it stands all the standard anti-semitic tropes of the day on their head. Of course the Jews could control Europe, since they are a “stronger race,” but it is “established” that they have no interest in doing so! And precisely because they are superior to Germans, they should be allowed to assimilate, contrary to anti-semites, who are the ones who should really be thrown out of the country. Holub, remarkably, obscures all this through selective quotation and flat-footed paraphrase (e.g., Holub seems to think Nietzsche’s mockery of German antipathy towards Jews really “validate(s) the German need to exclude Jews as crucial for the health of the nation” [122]). When Holub returns to the same passage in Chapter Five, he suggests that it endorses a distinction between “anti-Semitism and a more acceptable, less virulent Jewish attitude” (161), when it does nothing of the kind. Nietzsche’s point is that he has “yet to meet a German who was well disposed towards Jews,” a fact only obscured by the fact that some Germans advertise their rejection of extreme anti-semitism. But since Germans as a whole (unlike other Europeans) are “a people whose type is still weak and indeterminate,” Nietzsche suggests even those who reject extreme anti-semitism still maintain an anti-Jewish attitude. Holub’s misrepresentation of Nietzsche’s text here is revealing. — https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/nietzsche-s-hatred-of-jew-hatred

(don't have the time or current interest to search for more quotes of what I remember reading in Nietzsche's works as regards his sentiments toward the Jewish people)

--------

Nietzsche's writings aside, as to the currently interpreted conclusion that the weak are those who hold some measure of shame and guilt, for better or worse, I don’t think that there exists a single forest of people out there completely comprised of psychopaths (the "strong"). Nor, for that matter, any forest that is, has ever been, or that will ever be in the foreseeable future which is completely comprised of non-psychopaths. With any honest person, Jewish or otherwise, being able to attest to this.

“The weak” are those who have a conscious and who via its quiet affirmations experience shame and guilt for wrongdoings.

“The strong”, in turn, must then be those devoid of a conscious and who thereby experience no shame or guilt for any wrongdoing whatsoever (maybe not even recognizing that the concept of wrongdoing can apply to them). — javra

Nope it actually reads that the weak internalize negatively and gain a bad conscience, which the strong internalize positively and don't have a bad conscience.

It's been a while since my reading of him, granted, but this is not the Nietzsche I know of, limited as my knowledge of him is, who I’m guessing would have for example likely kicked Hitler in the groin where he to have been around – as painfully as possible, if not worse – and who can be quoted as admiring the Jewish community at large. — javra

Duh... A letter Nietzsche wrote to his sister:

You have committed one of the greatest stupidities — for yourself and for me! Your association with an anti-Semitic chief expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me again and again with ire or melancholy… It is a matter of honor with me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal in relation to Anti-Semitism, namely, opposed to it, as I am in my writings.

— Nietzsche, Letter to His Sister, Christmas, 1887

The fact that the Jews, if they wanted (or if they were forced, as the anti-Semites seem to want), could already be dominant, or indeed could literally have control over present-day Europe — https://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/philosophy/nietzsche-s-hatred-of-jew-hatred

...

The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe, they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favorable ones), by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Hence... (whoops editing cause I forgot to post the hence)

This is the pathology that Nietzsche details to the Jew, before assigning to them a mission to revamp European communities. Which is what Zionism aimed to accomplish pre 1948. — DifferentiatingEgg

Would you like more to show you how much of a friend he was to the marilginalized Jew? A point which I've been arguing Nietzsche is a fan of Jews this whole time?

Noone needs this Holub to detail Nietzsche's appreciation of Jews if they're a discerning reader of Nietzsche. It's common knowledge that Jews appreciate and appropriate Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology precisely for this reason: because he found the Jew to be an incredibly potent people capable of the greatest of feats of power.

Alright. Cool.

Nope it actually reads that the weak internalize negatively and gain a bad conscience, which the strong internalize positively and don't have a bad conscience. — DifferentiatingEgg

As pertains to this one quote, then, you might (?) want to re-term what you here call "bad conscience": A feeling of guiltiness, as if one has done something wrong. Because it's only the psychopath that does not experience this, right? I can argue that not even Abrahamic angels are guiltless. And as you probably well know, Nietzsche's gripe was not with guilt per se but with that type guilt that immobilizes and thereby leads to decay of both spirit and body. The doctor who makes a mistake has and ought to have a sense of guilt for it - without which the same mistakes would be endlessly repeated - but yet is not incapacitated by this guilt, instead learning and improving from it, so as to allow the doctor to continue healing his/her patients as best they can. Sort of thing. Brings to mind, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" ... cliche maybe, but it yet has its place.

Because it's only the psychopath that does not experience this, right? — javra

No, moralizing, the bad conscience, ressentiment, and responsibility are trade marks of the Judeo-Christian morality:

Aristotle draws an example of acting from the sphere of private life, in the relationship between the benefactor and his recipient. With that candid absence of moralizing that is the mark of Greek, though not of Roman, antiquity, he states first as a matter of fact that the benefactor always loves those he has helped more than he is loved by them. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition

Even the Titans do not yet know the incredible Semitic
and Christian inventions, bad conscience, fault and responsibility. — Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy

The tale of Prometheus is an original possession of the entire Aryan family of races, and documentary evidence of their capacity for the profoundly tragic; indeed, it is not improbable that this myth has the same characteristic significance for the Aryan race that the myth of the fall of man has for the Semitic, and that there is a relationship between the two myths like that of brother and sister. The presupposition of the Promethean myth is the transcendent value which a naïve humanity attach to fire as the true palladium of every ascending culture: that man, however, should dispose at will of this fire, and should not receive it only as a gift from heaven, as the igniting lightning or the warming solar flame, appeared to the contemplative primordial men as crime and robbery of the divine nature. And thus the first philosophical problem at once causes a painful, irreconcilable antagonism between man and God, and puts as it were a mass of rock at the gate of every culture. The best and highest that men can acquire they obtain by a crime, and must now in their turn take upon themselves its consequences, namely the whole flood of sufferings and sorrows with which the offended celestials must visit the nobly aspiring race of man: a bitter reflection, which, by the dignity it confers on crime, contrasts strangely with the Semitic myth of the fall of man, in which curiosity, beguilement, seducibility, wantonness,—in short, a whole series of pre-eminently feminine passions,—were regarded as the origin of evil. What distinguishes the Aryan representation is the sublime view of active sin as the properly Promethean virtue, which suggests at the same time the ethical basis of pessimistic tragedy as the justification of human evil—of human guilt as well as of the suffering incurred thereby. The misery in the essence of things—which[Pg 79] the contemplative Aryan is not disposed to explain away—the antagonism in the heart of the world, manifests itself to him as a medley of different worlds, for instance, a Divine and a human world, each of which is in the right individually, but as a separate existence alongside of another has to suffer for its individuation. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy

Because it's only the psychopath that does not experience this, right? — javra

No, moralizing, the bad conscience, ressentiment, and responsibility are trade marks of the Judeo-Christian morality: — DifferentiatingEgg

Because Buddhist, Hindus and all others, the Inuit included, don't experience any of these ... not being themselves of a Judeo-Christian morality.

Yea. No. I disagree.

As to support via quotes, I don't worship any human, even those I look up to as philosophical mentors, in part due to acknowledging that all humans are fallible. So I'll disagree irrespective of the variety of quotes you might offer. Even if they're form Nietzsche himself ... and beyond rhetorical ambiguities ... which in Nietzsche would be a rarity.

Because Buddhist, Hindus and all others, the Inuit included, don't experience any of these ... not being themselves of a Judeo-Christian morality.

Yea. No. I disagree. — javra

That's fine if you don't agree, doesn't make you right. It's common knowledge that Greek antiquity were premoral. As were many other. It's why Zarathustra created the concept of Light and Darkness. Because he noticed people internalize war differently.

That's fine if you don't agree, doesn't make you right. — DifferentiatingEgg

Don't make me wrong either. Especially in light of the fact that your theory contradicts blatant evidence, such as that previously offered.

It's common knowledge that Greek antiquity were premoral. As were many other. — DifferentiatingEgg

What can that even mean? Let me guess, it means that in Greek antiquity, if they'd so want, they'd stomp on their own babies heads for the fun of it without any moral compulsion. Thereby being "premoral".

But I get the impression that you might be a joker of sorts. In which case I might just let you joke away. Funny stuff.

What can that even mean? Let me guess, it means that in Greek antiquity, if they'd so want, they'd stomp on their own babies heads for the fun of it without any moral compulsion. Thereby being "premoral". — javra

Bruh doesn't know the Greek antiquity were famous for leaving babies on the hillside...

Don't make me wrong either. Especially in light of the fact that your theory contradicts blatant evidence, such as that previously offered. — javra

Nothing you've said contradicts me.

Ok bruh, chimpanzees will not kill their own babies without compulsion but "premoral" Greeks did this all the time without and scruples, 'cuz they had no morality about them. Got it. Ever notice that not even babies such as Oedipus were killed but instead left in "fate's" hands. Not that there were any distinct psychopaths back then in the populace of ancient Greeks ... because they all were so.

Do you personally know of any more moral warfare than that portrayed in the Iliad?

Nothing you've said contradicts me. — DifferentiatingEgg

You are uncontradictable. Got it. Enjoy.

The inuit, and Hindi aren't rigid dogmatic systems of morality that detail good and evil, and niether is Buddhism (which came after Judaism)...

Just throwing names of old societies doesn't do shit in terms of discussing morality which dictates good and evil.

That's what we call a swing and a miss. If you said something that is actually contrary to what I said, then you'd have a point. But you've failed in that.

Greeks had Virtue which was free from moralic acid. Ares was a champion of war and cruelty, and he was cherished all the same as the rest of the Gods (many of which were cruel, jealous, and unjust). They all had their place. The greek were a deterministic society, time is a circle... all things hitherto and heretofore have happened and will happen over and over again, so there is no wrong choice in the gateway of this moment...

You should probably try to brush up rather than just sound like a whiner...

get it from Zionist philosophers, not a 7 man swiss committee making propositions on land, — DifferentiatingEgg

There were over 200 delegates at the First Zionist Conference and the program waw adopted unanamously.

you'll notice none of the names I mentioned are even on that committee. — DifferentiatingEgg

Quite true - especially considering that Chomsky was born in 1928 - 30 years after these events. But even apart from this obvious goof on your part, these people were all wa-a-a-y outside the mainstream Zionist movement. I don't have the time or energy to bring you up to speed - but I'll leave it that the end goal of mainstream Zionism from the very start was colonization - the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Quite true - especially considering that Chomsky was born in 1928 - 30 years after these events. — EricH

Not an obvious goof, Chomsky became active in Zionism under the same Supranational intentions pre-Nakba. And only afterwards turned away from Zionism. The obvious goof is you trying to challenge me with only a quick Wikipedia scan...

I was connected to a considerable part of the Zionist movement which was opposed to a Jewish state. It’s not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state. Before that in the whole Zionist movement, establishing a Jewish state was maybe implicit or in people’s minds or something, but it wasn’t an official call.

The group that I was interested in was bi-nationalist. And that was not so small. A substantial part of the Kibbutz movement, for example, Hashomer Hatzair, was at least officially anti-state, calling for bi-nationalism. And the groups I was connected with were hoping for a socialist Palestine based on Arab-Jewish, working-class cooperation in a bi-national community: no state, no Jewish state, just Palestine. — Chomsky

There were over 200 delegates at the First Zionist Conference and the program waw adopted unanamously. — EricH

Nope...

The Basel Program was drafted by a committee elected on Sunday 29 August 1897[1] comprising Max Nordau (heading the committee),[2] Nathan Birnbaum, Alexander Mintz, Siegmund Rosenberg, Saul Rafael Landau,[3][2][4] together with Hermann Schapira and Max Bodenheimer who were added to the committee on the basis of them having both drafted previous similar programs (including the "Kölner Thesen").[1]

The seven-man committee prepared the Program over three drafting meetings.

You should probably read your sources.

Spectators are spectating.

In 1942, an "Extraordinary Zionist Conference" was held and announced a fundamental departure from traditional Zionist policy[21] with its demand "that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth."[22] It became the official Zionist stand on the ultimate aim of the movement. — Your source.

So we see in 1942 is when they announced a departure from the traditional Zionist policy. To create a commonwealth for the Jews. Rather than an inclusive supranational state.

The big problem here is I'm considering the philosophers who delve into Zionism vs you considering non-philosophers. For example, Trump is a Zionist. Who doesn't really know a damn thong about Zionism other than "Jewish Homeland in Israel." Which is what most Zionists are... doesn't mean they know shit about Zionism. I know more about the history of Zionism than most Jew.

Basic talking points vs the philosophy behind it.

It's like saying you know all of Kant because you know the talking points: "Thing inside itself", "Categoical Imperatives," "Deontology" and "Apriori Faculty!" ... Here, I'll throw your claim of reality right back at you...

I don't know where you get this notion, but it has no relationship with reality. — EricH

"Get real bruh."

Indeed, and the idea that the wretched, slaves, etc. were in their place precisely because they were wicked was obviously a popular opinion amongst the ancient Jews, since so many texts feel the need to weigh in on it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You say obviously, but I've read a fair bit of ancient Jewish lit and this isn't really a theme that appears much if at all. The stronger theme is caring for the poor and not all poor are presumed to be wicked. Elijah was poor, but pious. Some of the Talmudists were poor, but this is treated sympathetically. It is a great mitzvah to help them, but yes, wealth is treated as a blessing. Jewish tradition is naturally self-reflective, so if misfortune strikes it is natural to look for reasons.

I will give Nietzsche the benefit of the doubt here though and assume he is not primarily thinking of the fairly warrior-centric Hebrew culture of Joshua and Judges though, and more of later periods. The problem though is that Maccabees isn't that different. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Josephus frequently describes the Hasmoneans as "noble" and often mentions their beauty. Herod's wife was a Hasmonean and she wasn't shy about it. The Herodians hated her. A noble and proud people, indeed. But there was no true counter-force in terms of values.

I suspect Nietzsche is taking certain biblical ideas, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and then overstating these ideas and then attributing them to a shadowy priestly class. Then he situates this shadowy priestly class against a noble and proud aristocracy to form his history/genealogy.