תהלים כב, ד

ואתה קדוש יושב
תהלות ישראל

or

ואתה קדוש
יושב תהלות ישראל

See the comments by Shuvyah at:

http://www.zachicks.com/blog/2012/1/24/is-god-inhabits-the-praises-of-his-people-really-biblical.html?currentPage=5

Note also the discussion of "Israel" and Christian substitution of "God's people"... reinterpreted as Christians!

Why we need another way

Recently I received two pieces of writing on the topic of which foods are permissible for Jews to eat. One author, calling himself a Messianic Jew, argued that we can eat "anything" and that it would be wrong to make any restrictive rules, since this is what "Paul's writings" say. The other, an Orthodox Jew, discussed the intricacies of different (contradictory) rulings concerning whether one is allowed to eat a certain kind of vegetable if there is a possibility that a Gentile might have touched it at some point. He concluded that in some cases it is ok.

Right now I don't want to get into all the reasons why each of these "authoritative" and widely accepted opinions is (in my own humble opinion, of course) wrong, unbiblical, illogical, and offensive. I hear these two kinds of opinions over and over and over from these two camps, and I simply don't have the energy to keep responding to them every time. I just want to point out that we desperately need a different way. A true way. A way that is based on what Torah actually says -- about food and everything else in life.

Woman אישה

A Christian friend asked for my opinion of "God's View of a Woman," by Frank Viola. Here is my response:

I agree with Viola that God's esteem of Woman is very high. But in the process of trying to show us that, he makes some pretty erroneous remarks--some of which I consider demonstrative of how many Christians today, and sadly most of those with publicity, continue to misuse the biblical texts and misrepresent not only the nation of Israel but also God himself.

"Let’s take a trip back to ancient Israel and look at how women were viewed before Jesus came. The Jews had a very dim view of women. Jewish women were not allowed to receive an education. Hence, they were largely uneducated. Their only training was in how to raise children and keep house."

Viola is severely oversimplifying. For one thing, "ancient Israel" could span 2000 years, i.e. up to 500 CE, so he's being very vague. Regarding the central topic of Viola's sermon, here is an explicit example of when in Jewish (=Israelite) history women received an education alongside men: after Israel returned from exile in Babylon and rebuilt the temple in Jerusalem (around 516 BCE)--the same one in which Jesus (or "Yeshua" in Hebrew, which was his actual name) was dedicated, spoke, turned over tables, etc--"Ezra the priest brought the Tora before the congregation both of men and women, and all those who could hear with understanding [....] And he read therein [...] from morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those who could understand" (Nehemiah 7). You see, the teachings God spoke to my ancestors (i.e. the Tora) addressed both men and women. Both were treated as relevant, in the desert as well as during the time of the second temple.

Has Viola never read Proverbs 31? Or perhaps he forgot that that was written by an Israelite man with Israelite women in mind. There we read of a woman who conducts business: "she seeks wool, and flax, and works willingly with her hands" (cf. Paul's exhortation: Ephes 4:28), "She considers a field and buys it," "She makes garments and sells them, and delivers girdles to the merchant. Strength and dignity are her clothing," "She opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is a Tora of steadfast love." "Her children rise up and call her blessed, her husband also and he praises her." And this chapter is framed with longing for such women: "Who can find a woman of worth, for her price is far above rubies." By the way, religious Jewish men all around the world sing this proverb every Friday night to their wives sitting around the table with family and friends, imparting this ideal to the subsequent generations. Jews in the ancient world had a "dim" view of women? "He who finds a wife finds good, and obtains favor from YHVH" (Proverb 18). Seems to me that ancient Israelites did in fact hold a high esteem for women, and they clearly weren't expected to just keep house.

Viola goes on to talk about women's access in the temple compounds. Yes, Gentiles were limited access and Israelite women were, too, to a lesser extent. But I want to note that Israelite men were also limited (less than Israelite women and even less than non-Jews); the priests had access to an area closer to the ark and God's presence. They were also limited, however, as only the high priest could enter the most inner precinct once a year. These limitations, though, had more to do with ritual function and celebration, not with value of the individual. God chooses different people for different things. He chose Israel to establish his government--not the Koreans, not the Romans, not the Chileans. He chose the tribe of Levi as the priests, not Judah, not Mannaseh, not Benjamin. God doesn't give every human being the same role and responsibilities as every other human being. By the way, according to wikipedia, it was in the women's precinct where there was both music and dancing; Israelite men could also be there. Perhaps that's where Khana, a prophetess, was doing her work (Luke 2).

Viola also makes the sadly common mistake of imposing later Pharisaic traditions on not only the Pharisees of the first century but on all Israelites of that time. You must understand that during the second temple period the Pharisees were a sect. They claimed that their interpretation of God's Tora and that their oral traditions were authoritative. But they constituted one of several voices in Jewish society. The average Jew didn't necessarily follow them. So as an example, Viola cites a few blessings found in the Siddur--the Jewish prayer book where, yes, one of the morning prayers is, "Blessed are you, Lord our God, who has not made me a woman." But the Siddur didn't exist in the first century. In the early Medieval period it apparently was coming together and it wasn't distributed widely among Jewish communities until later in the Middle Ages. Yet Viola anachronistically reads the benedictions of this much later rabbinic (inheritors of the Pharisaic) text as commonly prayed by not only Pharisees but apparently the general Jewish populace of the first century. "This was man’s view of a woman in first-century Israel," he claims. That's a huge assumption with no evidence backing it.

Note: I own a Siddur though I use it selectively. My edition is edited by England's late chief rabbi. He mentions that that blessing has "nothing to do with hierarchies of dignity, for we believe that every human being is equally formed in the image of God. Rather, they are expressions of acknowledgement of the special duties of Jewish life. […] women are exempt from certain commands which apply to Jewish men." There you have a modern, orthodox (i.e. late-Pharisaic) view of the matter.

"It was not much better in other cultures. In fact, ever since the Fall of humanity, women have been regarded as second-class citizens—inferior to men."

He's right about that but in my opinion the revelation preserved by Israel, which has long framed the culture, tells me that in Israelite society, there existed at least a fundamental awe of Woman. Allow me to portray the contrast between one relevant nation and Israel. An ancient Greek poet, Hesiod, tells the story of how men were living just fine until they discovered fire. The gods in response created Woman explicitly as a curse. In my estimation, the advent of Woman related in Genesis is the diametric opposite. After God had founded the earth, the unfathomable depths of the sea, the gigantic burning stars, sunsets, gentle breezes, puppies, tigers, trees and their fruits, man with his creative faculty, wonder, yearning, capacity to care and feel, and every other good thing in the physical world and said it was very good, then God created as his finale: Woman. In the Israelite mind, she is the crowning achievement of all of God's creative work in the first six days.

Viola also pretty much misunderstands several of the examples he quotes in his effort to show just how extra-ordinarily Yeshua related to women:

1. John 8. A woman is brought by Pharisees and scribes and accused of adultery. It says very clearly that they brought her to Yeshua in order to trip him up and have reason to accuse him (probably of breaking God's laws). According to God's commands, a woman who commits adultery is to be killed if there are at least two witnesses. None of the accusers said they witnessed her. Yeshua did not either, and so he could not legally condemn her. A (male) adulterer, by the way, is to receive the same punishment. I just don't think this incident illustrates Yeshua's revolutionary respect for women as he just keeps the Tora and doesn't give into to the pressures of the Pharisees and scribes. The situation with John 4 is similar. Yeshua didn't personally witness with another person the Samaritan woman's adultery. It certainly was shocking to see him hanging out with people like this but that's because people expected a prophet, especially if this was the awaited messiah (i.e. the king-redeemer), to not condescend to such people's level. Indeed that is one of the beautiful things about Yeshua: he came to heal sinners as a doctor heals the sick. As for the surprise his disciples show for his speaking with a Samaritan (and a woman, no less), it very well may have been an issue of modesty. Once upon a time men and women kept a bit of distance in public. Women also covered up, and it's not necessarily out of assigning inferiority to them but rather deep cultural respect and value for a woman's body and reputation.

2. Luke 7. I just don't think the issue was one of sex. The reaction of the Pharisees is shock that he would let such a "sort of woman," i.e. a "sinner," touch him. They show similar surprise toward him dining with male tax collectors.

3. Matthew 15. Viola says that the Canaanite woman was considered a "dog" in Jewish society. I want to point out, first, that Yeshua, not a Pharisee or someone else, is the one who says, "it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." Second, the issue here is that she's Canaanite, not that she's a woman. We were supposed to entirely destroy the Canaanite nations but failed to do so, which is at issue here in Yeshua's treatment of her, I think. Once she acknowledges Israel's legitimacy and his authority over Israel (cf. "son of David" = messiah = king and redeemer of Israel) he heals her daughter.

4. Bride imagery. Again, has Viola not read Hosea? The prophet's marriage to a prostitute is meant to depict God's situation with adulterous Israel. And in anticipation of Israel's restoration, chapter 2 assures us, "I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, In lovingkindness and in compassion, And I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness." How about Isaiah 62: to Jerusalem he says, "as a bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you." Or Jeremiah 2: God said, "I remember in your favor, the devotion of your youth, your love as a bride, when you went after me in the wilderness. " Ezekiel 16 features a very thorough depiction of God having taken the nation of Israel as his wife. This imagery preceded Yeshua's arrival by up to hundreds of years. It wouldn't have surprised nor shamed Yeshua's disciples, neither men nor women, to have heard such imagery.

It just irks me that a man that claims to represent God and enjoy a wide readership, no doubt, teaches so fallaciously. I'm tired of these simplistic caricatures of not just the Pharisees, of whose tradition I'm not at all a fan, but also of Israel and even of, specifically, Yeshua. This kind of inaccurate and simplisic teaching is what historically has led to antisemitism and the further de-Judaising of Yeshua, who is first of all the king of Israel (cf. the plaque on his death stake). Aside from making chauvinistic Chileans uncomfortable, Viola may have also fed the old Christian doctrine of "the church of God vs. the synagogue of Satan." And if that wasn't bad enough, I don't imagine that his original Chilean audience (and now all of us who read his post) come away with very good feelings about the Jewish nation.

Having said a lot, I would love to know what any of you have to say in response to my points.

On the historicity of the conquest

Here is what Frank Cross of Harvard University, described as "America's leading Bible scholar," has to say on the question of whether Israel could have conquered Canaan as described in the biblical book of Joshua (an idea ridiculed today by many scholars):

"I am bemused by the fact that, given the widespread evidence of destruction in Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, some scholars are inclined to attribute the violence to various people, despite the lack of written records, to almost anyone—except Israel, for whom we have elaborate written records of warfare." [Conversations with a Bible Scholar, p.23]

The world is a train — which car are you in?

‘Pashkevilim’ offer glimpse into haredi struggle
By Melanie Lidman, The Jerusalem Post
06/11/2011

In the capital’s insular ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, haredi residents glean much of their community news from posters covering the stone walls, plastered onto seemingly every available surface. These stark black-and-white announcements, called pashkevilim, expound on everything from the dangers of technology to the proper (i.e. modest) attire to the latest boycotts to classes given by famous rabbis....

“The world is like a train,” he said... “the world is always moving forward... We just want to make sure that we’re in the last car of the train.”

Read the full article here

Biblical Sukkot and Rabbinic Sukkot

וּלְקַחְתֶּ֨ם לָכֶ֜ם בַּיּ֣וֹם הָרִאשׁ֗וֹן פְּרִ֨י עֵ֤ץ הָדָר֙ כַּפֹּ֣ת תְּמָרִ֔ים וַעֲנַ֥ף עֵץ־עָבֹ֖ת וְעַרְבֵי־נָ֑חַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּ֗ם לִפְנֵ֛י יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֖ם שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים׃ -- ויקרא כ"ג, 40

And take to yourselves on the first day [of Sukkoth] fruit of a majestic tree [or: majestic fruit of a tree], hands [i.e., fronds] of palms, and a branch of a leafy tree and of brook willows, and rejoice before HaShem your God seven days. -- Leviticus 23:40

When I read this commandment, I imagine a joyful folk festival: men, women, and children going down to the brook in a cheerful throng, gathering up different kinds of plants, and waving them happily before the Lord. It's spontaneous, free, colorful, and pretty devoid of ritual. Could be a nice time for a picnic; and certainly there are lots of children running around, laughing, shouting.

The rabbanim interpret this verse differently. An entire tractate of the Talmud forms the basis for their notions regarding the proper laws of Sukkot: the permitted size, shape, and materials of a sukkah; how many meals to eat during the week; the right size for the palm fronds; which kind of fruit-tree is "majestic" (hadar); what kind of points the lulav and etrog have to have to be 'kosher'; etc., etc. Since Mishnaic times many volumes of additional commentary and pronouncements have further defined the rabbinic interpretation of Sukkot. With regard to the verse cited above, the rabbinic regulations specify when the four species (arba'at ha-minim) may be waved; what prayers must be said before, during, and after waving; the precise manner in which they must be waved; the proper technique for taking all four together; and on and on. In other words, the rabbinic observance of this commandment is as ritualized as can be.

I believe in a much, much freer observance of God's commands, based on the spirit of the Torah itself. The rabbis insist on a standardized, controlled, sanctioned, ritualized observance of their massively expanded interpretation of Torah. Which of us is correct?

Jews and fantasy

Ever wonder why fantasy literature does not seem particularly Jewish? One professor's answer.

WHY THERE IS NO JEWISH NARNIA

by Michael Weingrad

Although it might seem unlikely that anyone would wonder whether the author of The Lord of the Rings was Jewish, the Nazis took no chances. When the publishing firm of Ruetten & Loening was negotiating with J. R. R. Tolkien over a German translation of The Hobbit in 1938, they demanded that Tolkien provide written assurance that he was an Aryan.

Read the article at:

Jewish Review of Books

Translating first-century Jewish faith accurately

The Messianic Writings

translated and annotated by Daniel Gruber

Elijah Publishing, 2011; 411 pp.

ISBN 978-0966925364

Two thousand years ago, a Jewish teacher named Yeshua ben Yosef appeared in the hills of Galilee and shared his simple, heartfelt, brilliant interpretation of Torah with the many crowds of Jews and some others who flocked to hear him. He quickly gained a reputation as a great prophet and healer, and many believed him to be the promised Messiah -- the deliverer of Israel. In subsequent decades, Yeshua's followers wrote accounts of his words and deeds, as well as their own letters and visions. These texts have come down to us in a Jewish-Greek hybrid language heavily influenced by Hebrew (similar to Yiddish or Ladino). Such a dialect had been employed a couple centuries earlier in producing the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Hebrew Scripture, which at the time of Yeshua was widely used by Greek-speaking Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean world.

The Messianic Writings as translated and annotated by Daniel Gruber represent, to my knowledge, the first attempt to render the texts about Yeshua (Jesus) into English from Jewish-Greek. Common translations erroneously operate as if these writings were originally written in a Christian, rather than a Jewish, idiom. However, an enormous and continually growing body of scholarship demonstrates that this was certainly not the case. Anyone familiar with the works of David Flusser, James Charlesworth, Daniel Boyarin, David Bivin, Oskar Skarsaune, or other leading researchers in the field will immediately recognize the validity and importance of translating from a first-century Jewish context instead of anachronistically and inappropriately from a Gentile Christian one. Today such an approach is widely accepted, at least in theory -- much more so than a century ago when Yosef Klausner began to urge studying Yeshua in his first-century Jewish context. Nonetheless, until now no one had actually made an English translation from the correct language or dialect: Hebraic or Judeo-Greek.

The print version of this book consists essentially of four parts: an introduction; the translation itself; notes attached to the translation; and additional notes or brief essays on specific questions of interpretation, usually related to enigmatic passages.

In his introduction, Gruber explains that the LXX "is an indispensable bridge for understanding the ways in which words are used in the Messianic Writings" (5). He describes his approach to translation in general and to the various manuscripts and textual compilations. He argues that Christian "New Testaments" often distort the original meaning of the texts due to theological bias and misinterpretation. Such errors in interpretation and translation -- such as the infamous "synagogue of Satan" rendering in Revelation -- have often fed into anti-Jewish sentiment and persecution throughout history, including "violent, tragic events" (7). Though no translation is perfect, this one at least has the advantage of starting from a historically defensible perspective on the original language and context.

The Greek word christos meant "smeared with oil." Jewish-Greek authors such as the LXX translators employed it as the equivalent for Hebrew mashiakh, "anointed, Messiah." The Messianic Writings translation therefore renders christos as "Messiah," since that is the most accurate English equivalent today for what was meant. Recognizing what Jean Carmignac called the obvious "Semitic substructure" of the text, Gruber correctly perceives diatheke as standing for Hebrew brit, "covenant," and thus avoids much confusion introduced by Christian use of the word "testament." Simply translating this word and related notions correctly shows Heb. 9:15-18 to be clear, straightforward, and consistent with its context, whereas most other translations make it appear incomprehensible and fallacious. Ekklesia is not translated as "church," nor sunagoge as "synagogue," because that is not what the terms meant in their first-century historical setting. Other expressions concerning government, law, faith, prophecy, and daily life are also rendered in a more contextually appropriate manner, often leading to eye-opening reinterpretations. These are but some of the more obvious examples of difference from common translations. No reader is likely to agree with every one of Gruber's choices, but that is to be expected when dealing with complex ancient writings. One subtle but highly commendable inclusion is the differentiation between singular and plural "you," an important distinction usually ignored in modern English versions.

The accompanying notes contain some brief explanatory comments and excerpts from related material in Qumranic, rabbinic, and other sources. This usually helps to frame the text in an ancient Jewish context and to reveal "conversations" that were ongoing at the time, even though much of the material does date from a later period. For example, the notes to Mt. 5:13 and Luke 14:34-35 ("if the salt becomes flat and tasteless, with what will it be seasoned?") point to a Talmudic tractate that asks the very same hypothetical or rhetorical question (16, 123). The note to Acts 15:29 (an explanation of what commandments Gentiles should keep) refers to a Talmudic discussion of the seven "Noahide laws" considered applicable to all humans, not only Jews (203). This reader finds the notes extremely helpful and hopes that they will continue to be developed in future editions. In particular, the roughly contemporaneous Qumran library (Dead Sea Scrolls) has much to offer in this respect. Both DSS 4QFlor and Philo Judaeus mention the idea of miqdash adam, a temple for God's presence constructed of human beings rather than of stones; it would be useful to have such references when reading 1Cor. 3:16-19, 2Cor. 6:16, Eph. 2:20-22, or Rev. 3:12 -- all of which describe the same or a very similar notion. There is almost no end to the number of useful notes that could be compiled and that would help to modify widespread but mistaken understandings of numerous passages.

The additional notes or essays at the back of the book address such topics as: other ancient Jewish sources that speak of the Messiah dying; textual rebuttal of allegations that Yeshua opposed or abrogated Torah's dietary guidelines; and whether long hair was considered desirable for men in the ancient world. The note on "The Seat of Moses" presents a powerful and convincing resolution of a difficult passage in Mt. 23. These notes also help to explain further the translation approach and choices. Some people are likely to disagree on religious (theological) grounds. However, if one's interest lies first of all in understanding the texts themselves as accurately as possible, then such considerations are both irrelevant and prejudicial. The Messianic Writings do not seek to cater to any particular religious standpoint, but rather to remain faithful to the records of the past as they were written at the time. This endeavor should please all honest seekers of truth -- whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or other.

In sum, it is hard to overestimate the importance of this groundbreaking attempt at a translation from Jewish-Greek into English. Translations that fully recognize the Hebraic dimensions of the writings in question have previously appeared in Hebrew (e.g., Yitskhak Zalkinson) and French (André Chouraqui). Yet the vast majority of existent versions in all modern languages do not translate from the original language or context. As the back cover of The Messianic Writings notes, "This initial translation is not perfect, and will always stand in need of improvement, but it is faithful to the text and its context." That fundamental reorientation -- accepting the text in its own historical setting, rather than through the prism of later theologies and biases -- makes a world of difference. This translation opens up vast areas for future discoveries and refinements. It is a new starting point for all those who are willing to encounter profound and revelatory Jewish faith of the first century on its own terms.

=======

The Messianic Writings are available in the following formats:

Print -- messianicwritings.com

Kindle -- amazon.com

Nook -- barnesandnoble.com

iPod/iPhone/iPad -- iTunes, iBookstore

Faith doubts

“Perhaps, like Socrates, I corrupt youth, but I do teach that Judaism encourages doubt, even as it enjoins faith and commitment. A Jew dare not live with absolute certainty not only because certainty is the hallmark of the fanatic and Judaism abhors fanaticism, but also because doubt is good for the human soul, its humility, and consequently its greater potential ultimately to discover its Creator.”

Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, 1966

Judaism for non-Jews

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has written another interesting piece about Yeshua of Nazareth, Saul of Tarsus, and universal promotion of Jewish values. Read it on the Jerusalem Post website: "No Holds Barred: Non-Jews as the Saviors of Judaism".

Not for the first time, Shmuley argues that "Jewish ethics" should be adopted by all people.

The beauty of Leah and Rachel

I love the edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, late chief rabbi of the British Empire. The commentary he selected has for many years given me a great deal of insight into the biblical text. I also very much appreciate the fact that he is an "advocate" for the Tanakh, defending it against its detractors and explaining many difficult passages so as to overcome antagonistic objections.

Of course we all have our biases. Reading in this week's parashah, I found myself wondering whether Hertz's selected commentary might sometimes be "too positive". Genesis 29:17 says:

ועיני לאה רכות ורחל היתה יפת תאר ויפת מראה — בראשית כ"ט, 17

A standard translation:

And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon.

The general idea conveyed by most translations has been that Leah was unattractive physically, whereas her younger sister Rakhel (Rahel, Rachel) was a beauty. Yet Hertz comments on the translation "weak":

Better, tender, which the Targum understands in the sense of 'beautiful'.

Later, in v. 31, there is a similar moment:

וירא יהוה כי שנואה לאה ויפתח את רחמה ורחל עקרה — בראשית כ"ט, 31

And ADONAI saw that Leah was hated, and He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.

Hertz remarks on "hated":

The word here only means 'less loved' — not that Jacob had an aversion to her, but that he preferred Rachel; cf. Deut. XXI, 15.

Thus, in both cases of a textual contrast between the two sisters, Hertz lessens the severity of the difference — thereby making the narrative more positive or palatable. If he is correct, it is important to know that in order to understand the text correctly. Yet at the same time, we know that Torah certainly does include dramatic conflicts between siblings. Just last week we read about Ya'aqov (Jacob) and 'Esav (Esau) fighting already in the womb of their mother Rivqah (Rebekah)!

So is Hertz's interpretation a needed revision of traditional translation, or biased sugarcoating of an unpleasant reality? Hebrew & Torah scholars, what say ye?

Incidentally, the implications of Hertz's interpretation affect many other passages, such as Malachi 1:2-3:

הלוא אח עשו ליעקב נאם יהוה ואהב את יעקב ואת עשו שנאתי — מלאכי א', 2-3

Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith ADONAI; Yet I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated.

In fact, Hertz makes the same comment here:

'Loved' and 'hated' in this and the preceding verse are relative terms only, denoting that one has been preferred to another; cf. the similar phraseology applied to Leah and Rachel, and used in Deut. XXI, 15.

The same type of phrasing appears also in (e.g.) Matt. 10:37; Luke 14:26. This interpretation could also affect (e.g.) Gen. 22:2.

What are the "weightier" matters of Torah?

A while back I was talking with ירמיה about the "weightier matters of the Law" as described in Mt. 23:23:

Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύμινον καὶ ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν· ταῦτα [δὲ] ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι.

Woe to you Torah scholars and Perushim, pretenders! For you give the tenth of mint, dill, and cumin; yet you have left undone the weightier matters of the Torah: justice, mercy, and faith. But it is necessary to do these things, and not to have left the others undone.

ירמיה, I remember you suggested that the ordinary translation might not be quite right — or else you had some other insight on the last part of the verse in the Jewish-Greek text, and how it should be interpreted. Could you share your thoughts again?

Gorged on Red Herring

A Response to Daniel Juster's "Review" of Daniel Gruber's Copernicus and the Jews

Several years ago Daniel Juster wrote a lengthy but rather dismissive review of an outstanding book by Daniel Gruber, Copernicus and the Jews, and posted it on his website. His article has remained on the web until now (June 2010). Unfortunately, it seems that a fair number of people continue to read Juster's comments about Copernicus and to be influenced by them. The main problem with this is that most of what he says has nothing whatsoever to do with the book. Rather, Juster used his "review" simply as a platform to promote his own interests and considerations, without engaging the book itself in any meaningful way. Though leery of giving Juster more exposure, I feel that someone who appreciates the actual content and arguments of Copernicus should finally provide at least some response to his supposed review of the book. My hope is to reduce the influence of his misguided evaluation by countering some of his misleading statements.

At first glance, Juster's article may seem like a "balanced review." The words he uses are a mix of complimentary and critical. The deeper problems appear only when one compares what he writes to the actual content of Copernicus. Most of Juster's bewildering "review" can be summarized as consisting of the following elements: