I'm going to take issue with a few things in this post. After reading what I wrote, I think I sound kind of like a jerk for much of it, so I'd like to ask for forgiveness in advance. That said, I'd like to have this conversation, so please forgive gross errors, mis-characterizations, rudeness and obliviousness on my part in the following paragraphs - I don't mean to sound as critical as I think I'm coming off as, and I mean neither disrespect nor ill will with any of it. Sometimes I fail at effective communication. That said:
Comparing violence between different historical cultures and mythologies is a valid exercise. One could just as well compare violent traditions from ancient Greece and Rome. There's nothing inherently offensive about asking that question. On the contrary, it seems natural to want to investigate historical violence in the two traditions which came to dominate the world, especially as that history is usually left out of polite conversation. The religiously inclined are likely to be aware of it, but the less-involved and most of mainstream culture are likely to be ignorant of it. Similarly, there's no reason to restrict such inquiries to violence - it would be interesting to compare historical traditions of marriage, law enforcement, culinary traditions - any and everything. These are interesting topics.
Jenkins says that he;s surprised that the Bible seems more violent than the Koran, but you dissect the statement as if he'd implied that he was unaware that there was violence in the bible. Jenkins doesn't seem surprised that there's violence in the bible, but that he finds it more violent than what's in the Koran. Specifically, he says that "many people will find it a surprise", which seems undisputably accurate. There is nothing to indicate that "he thought that it was all about peace and love and understanding", and to say so seems to be a mis-characterization of his remarks. The phrasing makes it seem like Jenkins is professing ignorance of the Koran more than the bible - that his initial impressions of violence in the Koran were more extreme than his research later suggested. Still a sort of ignorance, but the opposite of what you're accusing him of.
On the subject of pronunciation - I obviously do not speak Hebrew, so I'm probably totally out of my depth here. But apparently spelling Cherem beginning with a heth is acceptable, and can be pronounced like this, this or this. Hagerty's pronunciation seems like a not-too-badly anglicized pronunciation of either of the latter two, and not an unforgivable mangling for a non-native speaker (in the opinion of this non-native speaker).
On the subject of the biblical story of the the Amalekites, it's utterly unsurprising that the people carrying out a genocide would record history as the other people attacking first, and specifically targeting their children. That's true of pretty much every genocide in history. The Native Americans were attacking Christian children, the Armenians were doing terrible things to Turkish children, and everyone who's ever been a scapegoat minority has suffered from the a blood libel. Trying to justify a genocide through the reports of the victors is extremely suspect at best.
You say that by focusing on the genocide instead of ongoing threats to the Jews is to "miss the mark". Why does there have to be only one mark? Is the polite thing to do to ignore the violence because someone else would rather focus on a different aspect of the story? I'm sure that this story is usually used to set up the story of Esther, but so what? Your argument seems to be "the story as is usually told focuses on the long-term aftermath of the genocide rather than the genocide itself, so talking about the genocide is missing the mark offensively". It's possible I'm badly misreading you, and if so please forgive me and help me out with the understanding here.
Lastly, I think Jenkins as assertion that that modern portrayals of these texts do tend to gloss over the more violent bits is accurate. People who are passively or marginally involved in their religion, or people who are aware of a religion only through general popular culture, will miss out on these things entirely. They're not highlighted, not widely discussed, and generally only known to people who, like you, are intimately involved with their religion.
Actually, in this I think both you and Jenkins are making an over-generalization error. Jenkins extrapolates from a lack of popular knowledge of ancient violence to his "holy amnesia" hypothesis, even though it completely fails to account for an ongoing acute awareness of these details among the devout. I think you're making the same mistake in reverse - assuming that an ongoing recognition among the devout means that there's been no erosion in awareness whatsoever.
no subject
Comparing violence between different historical cultures and mythologies is a valid exercise. One could just as well compare violent traditions from ancient Greece and Rome. There's nothing inherently offensive about asking that question. On the contrary, it seems natural to want to investigate historical violence in the two traditions which came to dominate the world, especially as that history is usually left out of polite conversation. The religiously inclined are likely to be aware of it, but the less-involved and most of mainstream culture are likely to be ignorant of it. Similarly, there's no reason to restrict such inquiries to violence - it would be interesting to compare historical traditions of marriage, law enforcement, culinary traditions - any and everything. These are interesting topics.
Jenkins says that he;s surprised that the Bible seems more violent than the Koran, but you dissect the statement as if he'd implied that he was unaware that there was violence in the bible. Jenkins doesn't seem surprised that there's violence in the bible, but that he finds it more violent than what's in the Koran. Specifically, he says that "many people will find it a surprise", which seems undisputably accurate. There is nothing to indicate that "he thought that it was all about peace and love and understanding", and to say so seems to be a mis-characterization of his remarks. The phrasing makes it seem like Jenkins is professing ignorance of the Koran more than the bible - that his initial impressions of violence in the Koran were more extreme than his research later suggested. Still a sort of ignorance, but the opposite of what you're accusing him of.
On the subject of pronunciation - I obviously do not speak Hebrew, so I'm probably totally out of my depth here. But apparently spelling Cherem beginning with a heth is acceptable, and can be pronounced like this, this or this. Hagerty's pronunciation seems like a not-too-badly anglicized pronunciation of either of the latter two, and not an unforgivable mangling for a non-native speaker (in the opinion of this non-native speaker).
On the subject of the biblical story of the the Amalekites, it's utterly unsurprising that the people carrying out a genocide would record history as the other people attacking first, and specifically targeting their children. That's true of pretty much every genocide in history. The Native Americans were attacking Christian children, the Armenians were doing terrible things to Turkish children, and everyone who's ever been a scapegoat minority has suffered from the a blood libel. Trying to justify a genocide through the reports of the victors is extremely suspect at best.
You say that by focusing on the genocide instead of ongoing threats to the Jews is to "miss the mark". Why does there have to be only one mark? Is the polite thing to do to ignore the violence because someone else would rather focus on a different aspect of the story? I'm sure that this story is usually used to set up the story of Esther, but so what? Your argument seems to be "the story as is usually told focuses on the long-term aftermath of the genocide rather than the genocide itself, so talking about the genocide is missing the mark offensively". It's possible I'm badly misreading you, and if so please forgive me and help me out with the understanding here.
Lastly, I think Jenkins as assertion that that modern portrayals of these texts do tend to gloss over the more violent bits is accurate. People who are passively or marginally involved in their religion, or people who are aware of a religion only through general popular culture, will miss out on these things entirely. They're not highlighted, not widely discussed, and generally only known to people who, like you, are intimately involved with their religion.
Actually, in this I think both you and Jenkins are making an over-generalization error. Jenkins extrapolates from a lack of popular knowledge of ancient violence to his "holy amnesia" hypothesis, even though it completely fails to account for an ongoing acute awareness of these details among the devout. I think you're making the same mistake in reverse - assuming that an ongoing recognition among the devout means that there's been no erosion in awareness whatsoever.