Tuesday, October 6, 2026

Sources for the Three Creation Myths in the Hebrew Bible (Basically the Christian Old Testament) (10/6/26)

I have written on Jewish midrash before. Jewish midrash, in my mind, are marvelous additions to the bare text written over 2,000 years ago. Some of the midrash is quite meaningful in telling the story of the Israelites. (Christians do some of that, but in my experience with less discipline.)

This Torah.com offering is titled “Five Ancient Near Eastern Myths Behind the Bible’s Three Creation Accounts.” You can read the discussion here: https://www.thetorah.com/article/five-ancient-near-eastern-myths-behind-the-bibles-three-creation-accounts

I particularly like this offering because it plays into my history preferences and is consistent with what I have otherwise learned about the history of the Hebrew Bible and its sources from stories told long before the Hebrew Bible (or any portion) was committed to writing.

In this case, the author develops the pre-Hebrew Bible sources of the Bible’s creation myths. The first thing that attracted me was that there are three creation accounts in the Hebrew Bible. I was aware of the first two in Genesis 1 & 2 which are covered in most Torah Study (including this weeks Torah portion). I was not aware of the third. Always learn new stuff by reading. But I was more interested in the ancient origins of the creation accounts in the Hebrew Bible (and Christian Old Testament).

First to loop back to the common midrash issue in Ancient Near Eastern Literature, here is a copy and paste

The Bible as Midrash on ANE Literature

Sunday, September 20, 2026

The Libel Show at UVA Law Class of '67 (9/20/2026)

I am just remembering an event from my third year of law school (UVA class of ’67). This was the Libel Show, an annual tradition where the third year law students sort of mocked the law professors (all in good fun). I had a bit part, playing a giant in administrative law, Carl McFarland. (In my legal writing over the past few years, Carl McFarland has loomed large because he played the principal role in the  enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. (Just a tacky aside, the Supreme Court over the past few years have grossly misapplied the APA in ways that McFarland would not recognize; UVA has McFarland's Papers, including APA papers online here.) At any rate, back to the Libel Show.

The title of the 1967 Libel Show was: "Mountain Man Meets the 'Hardy' Boys" (The reference to Hardy Dillard, dean of the law school (a giant in the law). The following is a short blurb from the promo materials to whip up enthusiasm and attendance for the show:

The Libel Show this year is one big huge, rollicking "New Tort." The faculty is insulted, defamed, slandered, libeled in song and story.

Come see these invasions of privacy:

Bald Tommy Bergin and Micky Dickie Speidel's debating the admission of a bastard to U.Va., and

Charlie Gregory's sponsoring the admission of this bastard to U.Va.

Additional Attractions

___ Schotland squeaking
___ Many Munford girls molested
___ First year law girls molesting
___ Hardy Dillard leering
___ Em. Spies with new multiple choice questions.
___ Other jaws clamping shut on the 'gator'
___ Repeating Little Caesar McCoid repeating
___ Nancy Buc as 'Georgy Girl' *
___ Mary Voce as 'Baby Doll' *
___Tom Doud as Mason Willrich
___ And many other first year students.

My recollection is that Ms. Buc and Ms. Voce were 1st year law students, probably graduating in 1969. I'm not sure about Tom Doud. I am not sure why they were mentioned in the promo materials. Perhaps to get a draw from 1st year students who might otherwise have skipped the 3rd year foolishness in the Libel Show. In my class of '67, we had 5 women who started with us (about 250 total), and as I recall three graduated with us. (Aside, those women were very smart and accomplished.)

The pretense of the 1967 Libel show was a country bumpkin named Homer from Louisiana stumbling his way through a UVA bachelor’s degree and then law degree. (I stumbled my way through UVA law after stumbling through USC (the real one in Columbia, SC)). The Libel Show had lots of “in jokes” that only people affiliated with the law school would recognize. Since I was there at the time, I appreciated the jokes.

Saturday, August 29, 2026

Textualism or Pragmatism in Torah Study (8/29/26)

I have recently published an article in which a central theme is ambiguity in statutory text. See Townsend ABA Tax Lawyer Article Titled Loper Bright Flip Flops on Chevron Deference: A Tax Lawyer's Perspective (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 8/28/26), here. In this morning’s Torah Study focusing on Deuteronomy 26:1-1:19, Sefaria here, many interesting points were discussed. However, in my mind I veered off into the following question: In Torah interpretation, should the interpreter consider the consequences if the interpretation prevails? (Readers of this blog entry should not spend any time trying to figure out how I got to the question from the Torah reading; it's complex.)

I am a lawyer and this issue plays out in legal interpretation as well. At the expense of lack of nuance in a very complicated subject (statutory or constitutional interpretation), the issue plays out in the debate between so-called textualists (think fomer Justice Scalia and his current acolytes on the Supreme Court) and pragmatists (think retired Justice Breyer and his acolytes on the Supreme Court*). Starkly (without nuance) framed, the issue for text that can have more than one interpretation is between (i) an interpretation of the constitutional or statutory text at the time it was enacted as some mythical reasonable person would have read it regardless of the current consequences of the interpretation (e.g., as a literate (able to read) person in 1789) and (ii) an interpretation that considers the current (2026) consequences of alternative interpretations.

A similar issue arises in Torah interpretation (and of course all Bible interpretation for Jews and for Christians). Stated another way, the issue is whether the reader can update the interpretation to make the interpretation work better in the current world we actually live in? So, in the context of Torah Study, I asked ChatGPT Plus (my current favored AI tool) the following prompt:

In Torah interpretation, should the interpreter consider the consequences if the interpretation prevails?

I link to the entire response here. Please note that I ask the opening prompt and then have an iterative prompt suggested by the ending of the first response.

The ChatGPT Plus conclusion is (after going through details and examples; bold face in original response):

Thursday, July 30, 2026

Meaning in Torah (7/30/26)

I was captured by the introduction to this article which focuses on reading the Torah as the writer intended to write it. Dr.Michael Carasik, Reading the Bible Like a Writer (The Torah.com), here. I have recently posted on guides to interpreting meaning of text--what is more persuasive: the author's meaning or what the audience (contemporary or millenia later) might interpret the words to mean. See  James Kugel on the Shema; JAT on Originalism and Textualism (Jack Townsend Blog 7/24/26), here.

One of the examples the author uses to draw the naïve (like me) into the discussion is:

When Beethoven writes a chromatic accidental—adding a note, such as a C♯, to a key that does not include a C♯—it is not enough to point that out analytically. We need to be on the alert to discover the reason we are hearing that note—how it serves to modulate or add tension to the melodic line.

Caveat for those tempted to read the linked discussion, it delves into topics that perhaps a linguist will understand and enjoy. For example, under the heading Joseph and the Shechemite Speak (In)formally, the author says: 

When Jacob sends his son Joseph to check on the flocks that Joseph’s brothers are tending at Shechem, a man finds him along the way. The “man” (who is the focus of most of the traditional commentary on this verse)[2] uses an imperfect verb form to ask Joseph מַה תְּבַקֵּשׁ (mah tevakesh)?

בראשׁית לז:טווַיִּמְצָאֵהוּ אִישׁ וְהִנֵּה תֹעֶה בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיִּשְׁאָלֵהוּ הָאִישׁ לֵאמֹר מַה תְּבַקֵּשׁ.

 Gen 37:15 A man came upon him wandering in the fields. The man asked him, “What are you looking for (tevakesh)?”

Sunday, July 26, 2026

What ChatGPT Plus Knows About Me as of 7/26/26 and updated 7/28/26 (7/26/26; 7/28/26)

Note: On 7/28/26, I updated the original ChatGPT Plus response by asking ChatGPT Plus to consider my blogs. I have added the new prompt and the response after the original prompt and response. I have not omitted or edited anything from the responses. Of course, I would not expect ChatGPT which is sort of on my retainer (monthly fees) to say bad things for fear that I would fire her (or is it a he or it). 😁

Today I was reading a New York Times article about asking AI about one's self. Brian X. Chen, 4 Prompts That Can Tell You What Chatbots Really Know About You (NYT 7/23/26). So, I used the first prompt from the article and asked about me. Here is the result:

Prompt (from the NYT article): Tell me everything you’ve figured out about me that I never actually stated — the things you inferred from how I write and what I ask, including my age, income level, where I live, my personal situation. Show me what tipped you off.

ChatGPT's Response:

Worked for 1m 1s

I can separate what you actually disclosed, what I reasonably infer, and what would be speculation. Some apparent “inferences” are facts you stated in earlier conversations.

Strong inferences

You are probably John A. “Jack” Townsend

Confidence: high, but not certain.

What tipped me off:

  • Your profile identifies you as John Townsend.
  • You asked for a list of articles by John A. Townsend, described as a tax lawyer and adjunct professor.
  • You asked, “Is Jack Townsend a good tax controversy lawyer?” That sounded potentially self-referential.
  • Your questions display unusually deep familiarity with federal tax practice, criminal tax doctrine, IRS procedures, and legal scholarship.

My working hypothesis is that you are—or are closely connected with—John A. “Jack” Townsend. I would not treat that identification as conclusively established solely from these clues.

You are an experienced lawyer, legal scholar, or both

Confidence: very high.

The strongest clues are not merely your subject matter, but the way you frame questions:

  • You distinguish statutory text, elements, venue, materiality, burdens of proof, waiver, and continuing offenses.
  • You ask for statutory and case authority rather than generic explanations.
  • You request “law review style” treatment.
  • You notice narrow interpretive problems such as whether “inquired of” in 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a) extends beyond grand-jury investigations.
  • You ask citation-format questions and test whether propositions have adequate authority.

That is not how a casual taxpayer or beginning law student ordinarily writes. You seem accustomed to developing arguments, identifying doctrinal gaps, and anticipating counterarguments.

Your specialty is probably federal tax controversy and criminal tax

Confidence: very high.

Your recent questions cluster around:

  • I.R.C. §§ 7201, 7202, 7206(1), and 7206(2);
  • venue in federal tax prosecutions;
  • implied materiality requirements;
  • IRS criminal and administrative investigations;
  • OIRA review of tax regulations;
  • IRS publications and implementation;
  • tax-law articles and scholarship.

The specificity suggests professional specialization rather than a passing interest.

Friday, July 24, 2026

James Kugel on the Shema; JAT on Originalism and Textualism (7/24/26)

Professor Kugel offers here this nice historical perspective on Judaism’s prayer and central declaration of faith—the Shema which in Reform Judaism is here It is the claim that there is one God, our God—interpreted over the years (and traditions) as monotheism.

While I am not Jewish in a formal sense, I have absorbed the teachings of Reform Judaism after 25 years (and counting) of Torah Study every Saturday morning. Professor Kugel is one of my favorite authors, so I am fortunate to be on his email list for his weekly offerings that often help me in Torah Study.

This offering recounts how the bare words of the Torah were summarized in the Shema and were interpreted differently than the original words meant if read literally. As a lawyer who has considered the Supreme Court’s Constitutional and statutory interpretation over many years, Professor Kugel’s offering on the Shema meaning for me. If Judaism were limited to the text alone, there would be much in the Hebrew Bible (basically the same as the Christian Old Testament with some variances in content and translation) that would not be meaningful to us today. Alongside the written Hebrew Bible (for present purposes, the Torah, the First Five Books) was the Oral Torah about which I have written here. The Written Torah and the Oral Torah inform Judaism; and the Oral Torah can change the literal meaning of the text. In other words, the Oral Torah can shape meaning for the ongoing Torah. The Rabbis certainly did that in canonizing the Written Torah keeping the Oral Torah alive in and, in a sense, the process continues through the Talmud(s) and Midrash. It is too bad, I think, that Christianity has not absorded the teachings of that continuing process because it would dispel the false claim that the God of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) is a God of wrath rather than, as they claim is presented in the New Testament, a God of mercy.

Because I understand that all written text needs interpretation to be meaningful, I am unimpressed with the relatively recent conservative law project called “originalism” and, its cousin, textualism to read the Constitution and statutes (although many textualists claim that textualism is not literalism). My interest in these slogans derives from my federal tax controversy practice over most of my career. I am in the process of finalizing the 2026 editions of my Federal Tax Procedure book for publication on SSRN in early August. I devote a significant words, pages, and footnotes to aspects of statutory interpretation.

Saturday, April 25, 2026

On Leviticus 13 and Biblical Interpretation Beyond Any Likely Original Meaning (4/25/26)

This morning in my Torah Study (via Zoom with Houston’s Congregation Beth Israel, we covered the Holiness Code in Leviticus 19. In Torah Study, we read the text and interpret the text to make the text meaningful in our lives. I am a lawyer with interests in constitutional and statutory interpretation to make the text meaningful to the community served by the Constitution and statutes; the process is the same, but our Torah Study community is curious about the “original meaning” of the Torah text, but we are far from wedded to whatever we believe the or an original interpretation might be. As Jim Kugel, probably my favorite Hebrew Bible Scholar, says: The text we honor is the interpreted text, including interpretation by the tradition of rabbis and by ourselves in our current community. I could write a lot on whether interpretation of the Hebrew Bible should be different from interpretation of Constitution or statutes, and do on my Federal Tax Procedure Blog, here.

In this post, I want to focus on Leviticus 19:13. Since all translation is interpretation, we find it helpful to use two principal texts: Plaut’s The Torah: A Modern Commentary (Revised Edition 2006) in hardcopy (although I also have it in Kindle) and Sefaria’s online resource, here, which is really quite good. Often someone will bring in Robert Alter’s magnificent translation/interpretation in his book on the Torah, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (2004). Just for fun, I offer the three translations with commentary.

Plaut translation:

13] You shall not  defraud your fellow [Israelite]. You shall not commit robbery.

The Plaut translation offers no commentary other than supplying the bracketed word.

Sefaria Translation 

13 You shall not defraud your fellow.a You shall not commit robbery.

The only “commentary” in Sefaria is in the subscripted text adding: fellow I.e., fellow Israelite—whether male or female. In contrast to others “neighbor.”

 Alter translation

13 You shall not defraud your fellow man and shall not rob.

 Alter has no comment on this text.

In this morning's session, we read from the Plaut edition, the reading included the bracketed [Israelite] that, if a proper interpretation, is a commandment not to defraud fellow Israelites.

Wednesday, March 25, 2026

On Dave the Potter, a Literate Slave in Edgefield SC, and Anti-Literacy Laws (3/25/26)

Persons interested in the history of Greenwood SC probably already know that “Greenwood County was formed in 1897 from portions of Abbeville and Edgefield counties,” Wikipedia, here. This segues into today’s post on Dave the Potter inspired by Their Ancestor Was an Enslaved Potter. They Are Battling to Recover His Legacy (New York Times 3/25/26), here gift article. The featured artist in the article is Dave the Potter who was a slave in Edgefield County SC and a respected potter whose works are now in the 21st Century gathering more attention. See e.g., this YouTube video titled Hear Us Now: Poets Respond to Hear Me Now: The Black Potters of Old Edgefield, South Carolina, here. Dave the Potter was inducted in the South Carolina Hall of Fame. See e.g., YouTube video titled Dave the Potter | South Carolina Hall of Fame, here.

As an aside, Gemini (Google’s AI Tool) says that Dave the Potter did not live and create his pottery in the portion of Edgefield SC split off into Greenwood SC.

One interesting fact is that Dave the Potter could read and write at a time when it was a crime to teach slaves to read and write. I asked Gemini (Google’s AI Tool) “Why did some southern states prohibit teaching slaves to read and write?” The response Gemini offered was:

Sunday, March 22, 2026

Thoughts on Bart Ehman's Book Love Thy Neighbor (3/22/26; 4/2/26)

Added 4/2/26 910:00am: Ross Douthat, the NYT sort of Christian conservative editorialist, interviews Bart Ehrman on facets of this story. I offer here a "gift article" permitting peope to read the article and, hopefully, the comments many of which are great. Can We Trust the New Testament?: A Christian and a self-described Christian Atheist debate (NYT 4/2/26), here. The article, a transcription of a podcast discussion, is quite long, but rewarding for those with the interest to work through it. And some of the comments are quite good. Here is an example of a comment that ties into my blog entry and my disagreement with Ehrman that Jesus introduced something radically new:

First comment:

Jesus was only preaching what he learned as an observant Jew Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Second comment:

I am a Jew who worked for a number of years in an Episcopal School. Listening to the New Testament being read, and sitting through worship services, I realized that the historic Jesus was very much a Jew, and that what he taught were basic Jewish values. He wanted Jews to be better Jews, to get back to basic principles. What my Episcopal colleagues thought of as unique values in their faith were simply what Jesus learned as a practicing Jew, but they did not know that. I began to think of Jesus as perhaps the first Reform Jew. I struggled to understand how Christianity evolved from who the historic Jesus was, and then I discovered the brilliant scholar of early Christianity, Elaine Pagels. After a lecture of hers, I posed this question: "Would Jesus have called himself a Christian?" She said absolutely not. He was born, lived and died a Jew. He taught Judaism to Jews. Pagels also wrote about how Christians began to scapegoat Jews and portray them negatively (as is clear in the Gospels) as a way of attracting converts. Most enlightening. 

Monday, March 16, 2026

GHS 60 Alumni Reunion on June 8, 2026 (3/16/26)

To the Greenwood High School Class of 1960 Alumni:

After last year’s successful reunion, a decision was made to have another reunion this year. The reunion will be on June 8, 2026, at Port Grill on Lake Greenwood, here (formerly the Dock) starting at 4:30 pm. There will be a $15 per person charge that covers food. Drinks will be separately charged and paid.

For planning purposes, it will be helpful for those intending to advise  in advance if you plan to attend. You can do that by emailing me at jack@tjtaxlaw.com and I will forward it to the Pat Henderson Brooks who is the principal mover on this reunion.

Friday, January 30, 2026

Typewriting (aka Typing) War Stories (1/30/26)

I just communicated with a GHS60 Alumnus about my typewriting journey, started in HS at the insistence of my mother who was a secretary. Here is the communication, somewhat pared down:

I took typing in HS, I believe it was called personal typing. I got reasonably proficient. 

After HS, I went in the Army and had one other opportunity to develop my typing skills. I joined the Army Reserve with 12 classmates from GHS. We were offered the opportunity to stay together for the six months of active duty for training (Basic and some advanced) if we agreed to go into Advanced Infantry Training (AIT). So, my mother responded to a Colonel who wrote a serial form-type letter to all parents about what training we were getting. She responded on Office of the President stationery because she was the secretary for the President of Abney Mills. (Not only did the stationery say that, but in fact my mother shared the same physical office as the President and did that for the 20+ years she was there.) In any event, the Colonel must have thought I was important, because he came out into the field to meet me during Basic Training. I had no idea why he did that, but he did ask whether I might prefer going into some other Army specialty such as clerk typist rather than AIT. I declined, saying that I wanted to stay with my buddies in AIT. If I had accepted that offer, I would have honed my typing skills beyond the high school experience.

I also took typing in college in the business school at USC (after going on active duty in the Army in 1960). Just one semester. As I recall, I was the only male in the class, so that was a positive. I may have marginally increased my typing skills in that class.

So, I came out of college as a reasonable typist. 

While in college, I did Army Reserve duty in Columbia with a JAG unit. About the only typing I did was to type up the paperwork for my promotions for the Colonel to sign. 

I also received court reporter training at the Naval Justice School in Rhode Island. Although we used "monkey masks" to repeat into a recorder everything that went on in the mock courtroom, we then had to type up the recording in standard transcript format. Given the rigor of that training, good typing skills were required.

One college anecdote. At USC, I was a history major requiring a senior thesis. In the history department, the senior thesis was a big deal. I consulted with my favorite history teacher about the topic; that teacher then reviewed the thesis, including three or maybe four rounds of drafts. (He was a very exacting professor who worked hard and expected his students to work hard as well.) I turned in my first draft in handwriting. I went to his office for the review. I knocked on the door. He asked me to come in, close the door, and sit down. As I was closing the door and sitting down, he asked me “Mr. Townsend, do you know what I think of when I see sloppy handwriting?” I responded “No, sir.” He said “A sloppy mind.” I got the point.  (Actually given the tone of his question, I could have made a good guess; but as a side note, he had already graded me A on two examinations I took in handwriting, so he must have gotten over my horrible handwriting.) My later drafts were typewritten. My thesis won the outstanding senior thesis award for that year. That award was based on the content, rather than the typewritten presentation, but the typewritten presentation may have helped at the margins.

Sunday, May 18, 2025

GHS 60 Alumni Project (5/18/25)

 I have started a project to gather and present data on Greenwood High School Class of '60 Alumni ("GHS 60 Alumni"). The project is described with appropriate links in the page at the right of this blog entry that can be accessed here.

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

On the Bible and Poetry (12/5/23)

Many years ago, I taught a course on poetry in the Hebrew Bible. The course was inspired by Jim Kugel's The Great Poems of the Bible: A Reader's Companion with New Translations (Free Press 2012), Amazon here, but I drew on other sources as well.

For those who may be interested, I refer readers to Michael Edwards, The Bible and Poetry (The Paris Review 6/12/23), here, where the author discusses poetry in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible (consisting of the Old Testament which is close to the Hebrew Bible, although interpreted differently, and the New Testament).  

First of all, a caveat, that the following quote may indicate a Christian bias: "There are fewer poems in the New Testament, but they give even more food for thought."

With that caveat, here are some good excerpts that may whet readers' appetite to read the whole article:

It is true that the border between verse and a cadenced prose is not easy to determine in either the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New: translators judge it differently. It may also be that the poems spoken by Jacob, Simeon, and many others come not from them but from the authors of the books in which they appear. The result is the same. We find ourselves constantly in the presence of writings that invite us into the joy of words, into a well-shaped language, in a form that demands from us the attention that we give to poetry and awakens us to expectation.

Certain scholars of the Bible have long known that the poetry is not there simply to add a dash of nobility, or sublimity, or emotive force to what the author could have said in prose. They learned from literary critics what the critics had learned from poets: poetry is in itself a way of thinking and of imagining the world; it discovers with precision what it had to say only by saying it; the meaning of a poem awaits us in its manner of being, and meaning in the customary sense of the word is not what is most important about it.

Should we not ask ourselves if the presence of so many poems changes not only the way in which the Bible speaks to us, but also the kind of message, announcement, or call that it conveys? How must faith perceive biblical speech? What does this continual turn to poetry imply about the very nature of Christianity?

Friday, July 15, 2022

Balaam and the Talking Donkey - a Lesson for Us (7/15/22)

We covered the story of Balaam and the talking donkey last week in Torah Study. (The Balaam and talking donkey episode is in Numbers 22, here.  A Torah.com offering, Do Animals Feel Pain? Balaam’s Donkey vs. Descartes (thetorah.com  here) is wonderful midrash (in an expansive sense) on that story. Remember that Balaam rebukes the donkey for no appropriate reason.  Then, according to this midrash, The Angel Sides with the Donkey, here.  That is a comforting thought for all of us metaphorical and real donkeys.  Some snippets.

Just how appropriately it [the donkey] has behaved and spoken is confirmed when the angel rebukes Balaam. First, he repeats the animal’s complaint, in the same words the donkey uses, thereby validating it (v. 32).

Second, he makes Balaam aware that everything the donkey has done was for his own good and that he owes the animal his life (vv. 32–33).

Balaam is forced to apologize and admit his sinful behavior, pleading that the reason he erred was because, unlike his donkey, he did not know the angel was there (לֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי).

How often do we act inappropriate when we do not recognize that the Angel or God is there?

Also,

Animal Suffering in the Torah

The story of Balaam’s donkey is an extreme instance of something we see elsewhere in the Torah, that animals have feelings and it is incumbent upon humans to take this into consideration. In contrast to Descartes’ notion, which circulated widely and had a detrimental influence on the treatment of animals (as can be seen in Solomon Maimon’s story),[6] the Torah never doubts that animals feel pain and that a goat is most certainly not a drum.

A wonderful lesson.

Monday, August 2, 2021

More on Midrash - On Pharaoh and Egyptians as God's Creatures Too (8/2/21)

In my Torah Study Book Group, we are currently reading (finishing this week), Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg's Moses: A Human Life, here.  Zornberg has a particularly interest in midrash, and continues that interest in this book.  I have other postings on midrash on this blog, so those wanting more on midrash can click the link at the bottom of this blog entry.

I recently sent this email to our group:

You may be interested in this offering from TheTorah.com: Prof.Edward L. Greenstein, Where Are God’s Tears in Lamentations?, here:

The opening sets it up nicely:

Tears abound in Lamentations: the poet cries, the people cry, even the city cries, but God does not. In contrast, the gods and goddesses of ancient Near Eastern city laments, cry along with their people. Midrash Eichah Rabbah, seemingly uncomfortable with such a callous depiction of God, rereads Lamentations to include God weeping.

That is just the opening.  A really good read.

This reminds me of the midrash I mentioned that I got from Avivah Zornberg about God rebuking the angels who were celebrating the death of the Egyptians by drowning.  I originally heard this in a Krista Tippett interview of Zornberg back in 2005.  The audio and transcript of that interview, titled The Transformation of Pharaoh, Moses, and God, is here.  Here is the relevant excerpt:

Sunday, May 23, 2021

Midrash Similar to Jesus’ Separation of Sheep from Goats in Matthew (5/23/21)

The WPC community will undoubtedly recall the Jesus statement quote in Matthew 25:31-46, here, about how he separates the sheep from the goats—by determining who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc.  This episode says, in effect, the separation will be made by what a person did in life.  Significantly, what is not stated in this episode is any role for "belief" whatever exactly that is.

I think this is a very Jewish way of thinking.  That should not be surprising because Jesus was a Jew.

A similar story is told in the Jewish tradition by midrash.  Back in 2007, I found this offering in Reform Judaism’s Ten Minutes of Torah.  Unfortunately, I could not find the link today but I had copied the text of the offering and therefore offer it here:

April 12, 2007  

Week 177, Day 4

24 Nisan 5767 

Life after Death: Open the Gates of Righteousness 

Midrash, Thillim Rabbah 118:19 

Text: 

At the time of judgment in the future world everyone will be asked, What was your occupation? If the person answers, I used to feed the hungry, they will say to him, This is Gods gate; you who fed the hungry may enter. I used to give water to those who were thirsty-they will say to him, This is Gods gate; you who gave water to those who were thirsty may enter. I used to clothe the naked-they will say to him, This is Gods gate; you who clothed the naked may enter and similarly with those who raised orphans, and who performed the mitzvah of tzedakah, and who performed acts of caring, loving-kindness. 

Interpretation:

Kugel on Biblical Interpretation by the Ancient Interpreters and Current Jewish and Christian Interpretation (5/23/21)

In the book forming the basis for the WPC series (Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently), the authors offer (pp. 24-25) Professor James’ Kugel’s “four principles of ancient Jewish exegesis.”  I thought I would offer just a little more on that from the Kugel’s How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now.  Kugel says that these principles are “Four Assumptions” that ancient interpreters brought to interpreting the Hebrew Bible.

Kugel has a special expertise in interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (including Christian interpretations) of the Hebrew Bible and has placed particular focus on interpretations of the Hebrew Bible when the Jewish community canonized the text over many years.  He argues that the key interpretations were not what the original author(s) (or redactors) may have intended but the interpretations when the Jewish community accepted the text as interpreted as canon for their religion.  Thus, Song of Songs (Song of Solomon in the Christian Bible) is a love poem between woman and man.  By a process of interpretation, the Jewish community and then the Christian community made it about the love of God and community.  This interpretive process starts and then does not end.

Here is  how Kugel illustrates his focus on ancient interpreters (pp. 10-17, footnotes and endnotes omitted and bold-face supplied by JAT):

The Ancient Interpreters at Work

                        Who were the interpreters of these ancient writings? n14 For the most part, their names are unknown. From their writings and from their whole approach to interpreting Scripture, it would appear that most of them were teachers or professional sages of sorts; n15 is some were probably independently wealthy men (and, possibly, women) who had the leisure to pursue their subject. n16 Indeed, we know that a few, like the second-century BCE sage Ben Sira, belonged to the ruling class and were close to the political leadership (Sir. 39:4; 50:1-24); such figures no doubt strengthened the connection between reading Scripture and determining how community affairs were to be run in their own day. Their ideas about how Scripture is to be interpreted have survived in a number of texts belonging to the end of the biblical period—texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the biblical apocrypha and pseudepigraphas as well as in somewhat later writings such as those of early Christians and the founders of rabbinic Judaism.

[11]

            The manner in which ancient interpreters read and explained Scripture is at first likely to strike modern readers as a bit strange. They did not go about the job of interpreting the way we do nowadays. Take, for example, the famous biblical story of how God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar:

And it came to pass, after these things, that God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" and he answered, "Here I am." He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. Then sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains that I will show you." So Abraham got up early in the morning and saddled his donkey. He took two of his servants with him, along with his son Isaac; he cut the wood for the burnt offering and then set out for the place that God had told him about. On the third day, Abraham looked up and saw the place from afar. Abraham told his servants, "You stay here with the donkey while the boy and I go up there, so that we can worship and then come back to you."

            Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac; then he took the fire and the knife, and the two of them walked together. But Isaac said to his father Abraham, "Father?" and he said, "Here I am, my son." And he said, "Here is the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" Abraham said, "God Himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them walked together.

            When they came to the place that God had told him about, Abraham built an altar and arranged the wood on it. He then tied up his son Isaac and put him on the altar on top of the wood. Abraham picked up the knife to kill his son. But an angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Do not harm the boy or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." And Abraham looked up and saw a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. Abraham went and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son.

                                                                                    Gen. 22:1-13

            The story itself is quite disturbing to modern readers — as it was to ancient readers. How could God, even as a test, order someone to kill his own son? And why would God ever need to test Abraham in this way? After all, God is supposed to know everything: presumably, He knew how the test would come out before it took place, and He certainly already knew that Abraham was one who "feared God," as the angel says after the test is over. Equally disturbing is the way Abraham deceives his son Isaac. He does not tell him  [12] what God has told him to do; Isaac is kept in the dark until the last minute. In fact, when Isaac asks the obvious question—I see all the accoutrements for the sacrifice, but where is the animal we're going to sacrifice? — Abraham gives him an evasive answer: "God Himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." This actually turns out to be true; God does provide a sacrificial animal — but Abraham had no way of knowing it at the time.

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Presbyterian Excommunication for Heresy as a Preface to Biblical Criticism (5/22/21)

Those who have read my blog posts here note that I am quite enamored of Professor James Kugel.  I have quoted from his book, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (Free Press 2007 ed.).  That book was about modern scholarship and traditional interpretations (including Christian interpretations) of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible / Old Testament; in this post I will call it the Hebrew Bible).  The book rocked my boat when I first read it (still does), bringing to the task of reading my past in the Christian tradition.

I was surprised that Professor Kugel opened the book (Chapter 1, titled "Rise of Modern Biblical Scholarship") with a picture of Professor Charles Augustus Briggs. I had never heard of Briggs before but I turned the page anyway and quickly found out.  Briggs’ Wikipedia page starts off by saying that he was “American Presbyterian (and later Episcopalian) scholar and theologian.”  Kugel’s bookends the opening and closing of Chapter 1 with Briggs' story.  As a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Briggs gave a speech on his specialty, the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, laying out the best scholarship on the Hebrew Bible at the time (the 1890s).  For that, the Presbyterian Church excommunicated Briggs for heresy (although his scholarship in the speech has stood the test of time).  The excommunication came after a long and well-publicized trial in Washington D.C.  How many knew that the Presbyterians excommunicated?  I have asked a few Presbyterians and few knew about the episode.  I always thought excommunication was a Catholic thing.  (When I first read the book, I was a Baptist and, as such, just suspected that the Presbyterians had hung onto that vestige of Catholicism.)

I offer below the opening and closing related of Chapter 1 excerpts related to Charles Augustus Briggs (I put page numbers in brackets) (and for those wanting to know what is between the opening and closing (it’s great), please email me jack@tjtaxlaw.com.  I omit footnotes (mostly scholarly) and bold-face certain parts that might be of particular interest to WPC members:

[2]

            On a warm May afternoon in 1893, a man stood on trial for heresy in Washington, D.C. This circumstance might in itself appear surprising. The defendant was being tried by the Presbyterian Church, which had always prided itself on its tradition of intellectualism and an educated clergy. While disagreements about church teachings were not rare in the denomination, going as far as putting a man on trial for his beliefs was certainly an extreme step. n1 Such a trial might also appear ill-suited to the end of the nineteenth century, a time of great openness to new ideas. Darwin's Origin of Species had been published a full three decades earlier, and Einstein's first writings on the theory of relativity were only twelve years away. America itself was a country of electric-powered machines and newfangled telephones, a rising economic and political center with its own burgeoning literary and intellectual avant-garde. Across the Atlantic, Sigmund Freud was working out his ideas on sexuality and the unconscious; Pablo Picasso was twelve years old, James Joyce was eleven, and D. H. Lawrence was eight. Heresy?

            Still more surprising was the man in the dock; Charles Augustus Briggs hardly seemed fitted to the role of heretic. In his youth, he had been an altogether traditional Presbyterian, distinguished only by the fervor of his belief. In his sophomore year at the University of Virginia, he presented himself for formal membership at the First Presbyterian Church of Charlottesville, and thereafter he became a committed evangelical Christian. n2 The tone of his faith in those early years is well captured by a letter he wrote to his sister Millie:

I trust you feel that you are a sinner. I trust that you know that Christ is your Savior, and I want to entreat you to go to him in prayer. I know by experience that Christ is precious, and that I would not give him up for the world... . Do you want to be separated from your brother and sister when they shall be with Jesus? Are you willing to be with the Devil in torment? You can decide the question in a moment. n3

            So great was Briggs's sense of calling that he soon abandoned plans to go into his father's highly prosperous business—Alanson Briggs, known as the "barrel king," owned and operated the largest barrel factory in the United States—in order to devote himself entirely to a life of Christian preaching and teaching.

[3]

            Briggs proved to be a gifted student of biblical Hebrew and ancient history, and he was soon ordained a Presbyterian minister. After having served as pastor to a small congregation in New Jersey for a time, he accepted a teaching post at one of the mainline seminaries of his day, the Union Theological Seminary in New York, where he lectured on Hebrew grammar and various biblical themes. He became, by all accounts, a highly respected scholar, acclaimed at a relatively young age as already belonging to "the foremost rank among the scholars of his day."  n4 Today, a century later, one of Briggs's books is still in print (a rare feat among academics!), a dictionary of biblical Hebrew that he coauthored with Francis Brown and S. R. Driver in 1906. Indeed, "BDB," as this dictionary is commonly known (for the initials of its three authors' last names), is still a required purchase for any graduate student undertaking serious work on the Hebrew Bible.

            What, then, was this son of the Establishment, an expert in Hebrew lexicography and biblical theology, doing on trial? It all had to do with a speech he had made two years earlier, on the occasion of his being named to a prestigious new chair at Union Seminary. Briggs's inaugural address, delivered on the evening of January 20, 1891, went on for well more than an hour. It began innocently enough; as required of all such appointees at Presbyterian seminaries, he opened with a public declaration of his faith in the Bible and the church's system of governance:

Friday, May 21, 2021

Further on Midrash - Having Our Bible and Criticizing It Too (5/21/21)

I previously offered a post titled "On Midrash (5/3/21)."  In that post, I offered some discussion by Professor James Kugel.  Professor Kugel has an offering today on "Having Our Bible and Criticizing It Too", here.  In it, he offers some discussion of midrash.  I quote the ending (the punch-line, so to speak):

My talk concerned the well-known midrash about Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, according to which Joseph was indeed tempted to sin, until at the last minute he had a vision of his father’s face and immediately desisted. My talk was about how this midrash had come into existence.

When it came time for questions, her hand shot up. I tried looking the other way, but finally I gave in and called on her. “I’m from Byalishtok [Białystok],” she said—and indeed, she had a rather heavy Yiddish accent—and this medrash you’re talking, the father’s face—everyone in Byalishtok knew about this medrash. You didn’t say anything new.

In fact, there was a boy in Byalishtok, Shmulik his name, and he…” at this point she paused, staring at me with a look that combined equal measures of pity and disdain. “Do you know what is beis boishes?” (A brothel.) “Yes,” I said weakly. “Well, this Shmulik, he goes into the beis boishes, but after a minute he comes rushing out. “What happened?” his friends ask him. “Maybe you see your father’s face, like Yoisef ha-Tzaddik?” “No,” Shmulik said, “just his galoshes.”



Saturday, May 15, 2021

Isaiah 7:14 - Virgin or Young Woman? (5/14/21)

Among the verses we will discuss at the second session, on 5/16, is Isaiah 7:14.  The known key “facts” are as follows:  (1) The biblical Hebrew for the verse refers to a “young woman” meaning just that, young woman, without necessarily being a virgin; (2) in translating Isaiah 7:14 into Greek for the Septuagint, the translator(s) used the Greek word Parthenos which did mean virgin; and (3) the Christian tradition took their “Old Testament” from translations influenced by the Septuagint. Hence, Matthew and Luke anchor their narratives in a virgin birth prophesied by Isaiah.

Isaiah 7:14 (NRSV) says (emphasis supplied): 

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman[a] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

[a] Isaiah 7:14 Gk the virgin

Isaiah 7:14 (KJV) says (emphasis supplied):

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

The NRSV has gone back to the best translation of the Biblical Hebrew. 

Kugel (pp. 539-552) addresses this verse as follows after translating the Biblical Hebrew verse as follows (emphasis supplied):

Suppose a certain young woman gets pregnant and gives birth to a son; she should give him the name “God-amidst-us” [Hebrew: ‘Immanu-’el].

* * * * 

Immanuel 

The exact identity and nature of the “certain young woman” who gets pregnant in Isaiah’s above-cited oracle is somewhat controversial: was she a real person, or merely hypothetical? * * * * The next word, ha-‘almah, translated as “a certain young woman,” might also be rendered simply as “the young woman.” Some scholars have in fact suggested that the definite article here implies a known individual—perhaps Ahaz’s own wife, or Isaiah’s. * * * * However, biblical Hebrew sometimes also uses definite articles and even demonstratives in an indefinite sense, in the same way that an English speaker might say, “This guy came up to me and started talking French,” where “this guy” really means “an undefined person, someone I never met before.” Considering this ambiguity, “a certain young woman” seems to preserve better the vagueness of the Hebrew: she might be known or might not be. As for “young woman,” that is how ‘almah is usually translated nowadays; the word does not necessarily tell us whether she is married or not.