The Jewish New Year begins tonight
Jewish holidays start at sundown, so tonight is the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the two-day celebration of the beginning of the new year:
…[It] is the traditional anniversary of the creation of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman according to the Hebrew Bible, and the inauguration of humanity’s role in God’s world.
Rosh Hashanah customs include sounding the shofar (a cleaned-out ram’s horn), as prescribed in the Torah, following the prescription of the Hebrew Bible to “raise a noise” on Yom Teruah. Its rabbinical customs include attending synagogue services and reciting special liturgy about teshuva [repentance], as well as enjoying festive meals. Eating symbolic foods is now a tradition, such as apples dipped in honey, hoping to evoke a sweet new year.
We could use a sweet new year, right? Happy New Year!
And happy new year to you and all your readers/commenters, Neo. Yes, we could use a sweet new year!
It wasn’t so long ago that we had hopes that 2021 would be much better than 2020. Ooopsie!
The book is about open – it may be a very interesting ten days! Yom Tov!
Likewise, Happy New Year!
Or as Joe Biden would celebrate, “Russia Shona!”
_______________________________
But this morning let us first consider the inner Dementia Joe, the “praxing Catholic,” as he describes himself, as he spoke with Jewish leaders on the eve of the high holiday he calls “Russia Shona.”
Most of the attention has focused on his abject lie to the rabbis that he visited the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh after the 2018 massacre. He didn’t, of course — just flat out made up something that didn’t happen. It’s a Biden thing.
https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/09/04/howie-carr-its-weekend-at-bidens-and-what-a-busy-time-its-been/
L’Shana tova.
In the 80s/90s I remember a certain amount of Christian and Jewish dialog.
The Presbyterian church I attended then called itself a Church of Shalom. I’m not sure what that meant, but on occasion of some Jewish holidays we would bring in a rabbi to say a few words and everyone would feel good.
Is that going on anymore?
L’Shana Tova Neo!
5782. Happy Lindy New Year!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
Very go-getting youngish Thai girl who has recently started at a Connecticut Hedge Fund WhatsApped the following last week: “Half the office is taking time off next week.”
Zaphod:
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.”
Happy New Year!
Let’s hope it is a better one!
Huxley; “In the 80s/90s I remember a certain amount of Christian and Jewish dialog.”
Well, I’m older than that – in the late 60s and early 70s I was in Sunday school at a Presbyterian Church that did something similar with a synagogue a few towns over. Although, I don’t remember doing anything with them for Rosh Hashanah, I do remember that we would be invited to celebrate a Seder meal every year for Passover. And a few times their young groups came to our church for one event or another.
We also did some exchanges with other Christian churches as well; the town’s Methodist church and another town’s Baptists church would join in.
I haven’t attended a formal church service in decades; but, I do hope that such exchanges still take place.
huxley & charles > such exchanges are indeed still occurring.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/05/why-nys-archbishop-relishes-the-jewish-high-holy-days/
By Timothy Cardinal Dolan
A healthy and happy New Year to you and yours!
I knew the asshole would try to hijack this thread.
charles, AesopFan:
Well, I’m glad there is still some dialog or whatever between Christians and Jews.
As I recall, Pope John Paul II once said that to be a good Catholic one must first be a good Jew. Which sounded like a woopsie to me.
I can imagine why he would say that, but I’m not sure his Jewish friends would entirely appreciate it.
Still, JP II worked hard to mend fences with Jews. Due credit.
huxley, many “orthodox” Christians these days, that is, those who can recite one of the ancient creeds without fingers crossed behind their backs, are becoming reacquainted with the deep Jewish roots of the faith. I recently visited, with friends, a liberal Lutheran church in which the preacher said he’d always thought of Jesus as “white.” What? Jesus was an observant Near Eastern Jew. If “white” means “northern European,” which it used to mean, he was no such thing.
…Christians these days, that is, those who can recite one of the ancient creeds without fingers crossed behind their backs…
Kate:
The rector, at an Episcopal church I attended, explained to me she never checked to see if her congregants were saying *all* the words of the Creed during mass!
Kate:
My point, though, was that Jews might not be happy to hear their faith described as the first stage booster rocket to becoming a Christian.
huxley, I think even medieval rabbi Maimonides acknowledged that it was Christians who caused the Torah to be spread to the known world. Of course Jews and informed Christians are aware of the negative history between the faiths.
Your story about that Episcopal church is the kind of thing which has caused me to be no longer Episcopalian. It’s a free country. If people don’t believe, they’re free to do so, but why pretend?
Dear Neo-
From a Catholic who attended an evangelical Protestant college, who doesn’t cross his fingers when reciting the creed, and who learned to admire the Jews (in my elementary school and in Israel) during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Happy New Year! I love your blog, which travels from ballerinas to Biden to memories of the Big Apple. J
Kate:
Jews and Christians obviously have much in common in terms of belief and history. However, I can imagine Jews feeling slighted by a remark that their religion is the first stage for the truly fulfilled religion, Christianity.
Which is what Christians believe, but in the name of ecumenicism it doesn’t strike me as particularly sensitive opener.
I recall researching “Jews for Jesus” and discovering there were Jews who resented the J4J position that Judaism was a sort of incomplete Christianity.
huxley, many don’t like the J4J evangelism. It’s understandable.
Although inelegantly expressed, I think the JPII point was once again, as the early Church Fathers did, to reject the heresy that the Hebrew Scriptures had nothing to do with the New Testament faith.
And, as it’s now sundown at least on the East Coast, some of our Jewish commenters may be back, to receive best wishes for a sweet New Year.
@FOAF:
Easy on the Ancestral Atavism there, Old Boy. Can’t figure out whether you’re channeling Job or the love child of Marvin the Paranoid Android and Balaam’s Eeyore.
@Huxley & Kate:
Or we could all just stop tiptoeing around each other and instead rattle around like a bunch of rocks in a polishing drum and eventually all come out a bit smoother and shinier. Between two very different creeds / world views (let alone any racial exclusivity issues – Not Invented Here, BTW) there can be Respect — even if often half-jokingly half-grudgingly — and a fair degree of mutual understanding.
What doesn’t work is some kind of fawning fan-forced kumbayah clambake (heh). My sense is that Jews have a bit more spidey sense around the more extreme Philosemites — and rightly so. Less likely to be stable and you never quite know what they’re going to flip into next Full Moon.
Another year… So many of them. The Jews are like the Pyramid: Indestructible. They’ll still be here plus hawking bagels on planets circling Alpha Centauri when the rest of us are all dust. All we can hope for is that the very un-Tevye-like FOAF didn’t write our paltry footnote in their Chronicles. But then history is written by the Victors, so my optimism there is tempered.
Happy New Year again anyway to the most hardy and persistent survivors Humanity has ever known!
Kate:
Perhaps I’m oversensitive on the point of others presuming to define an identity on their terms before consulting with those identified on the point.
Say, were Zaphod to declare, “In order to be a good Zaphod, one must first be a good huxley.”
I might wonder where Zaphod acquired the authority to decide what a good huxley was. He sure didn’t ask me.
A big hand for Zaphod, folks! Thanks for participating.
huxley, it’s an insoluble difference of opinion. We Christians believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises in the Hebrew scriptures. Jewish believers and teachers naturally disagree. All we can do is have mutual respect, as Zaphod points out. I am currently reading Dennis Prager’s series of Torah commentary, which is very interesting, and that’s the approach Prager takes. He’s an observant Jew, but treats his Christian and atheist/agnostic readers with respect and understanding.
Regarding JP II’s statement, some seem to have taken offense. I did not read it that way at all. As Kate has written, it is simply true.
Jesus was Jewish. The Apostles were Jewish. Catholicism (the Pope’s religion) is a Jewish faith. There were different interpretations of Judaism in Jesus’ time and some of the followers of those sects debated Jesus on scriptural law; Pharisees, Sadducees… Some historians even theorize Jesus may have been an Essene, another “flavor” of Judaism extant at the time.
The Sadducees did not think Jesus was doing Judaism right. They also didn’t think the Essenes were doing Judaism right. And vice versa.
Jesus himself proclaimed he came to fulfill Jewish law.
The debate, obviously, is whether Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the Jewish faith. Christians believe he was. Jews do not. I understand that is a very important distinction, but that is literally the only distinction.
Well, in practice, RTF, there are some large differences. As a Gentile, I am not called to observe the Jewish ritual or dietary laws. Most early Christians were also Jewish, and presumably observed the law, but as more and more Gentiles joined the faith, these practices were overwhelmed and, by most, discarded, in favor of the developing Christian patterns of observance. For instance, I won’t be in a synagogue fasting and praying for twenty-four hours next week. Our observant Jewish friends will do so.
Kate,
I understand the differences, but my point is Jesus and the Apostles thought of themselves as Jewish, and believed they were practicing the Jewish faith. Modern Jews don’t agree with Jesus’ explanation of the Jewish faith, just as modern Rabbis don’t all agree on how to interpret the Torah and Pentateuch. Reformed Jews and Orthodox Jews believe they are observing Judaism, but they don’t observe in the same way.
Martin Luther believed he was Catholic and was following the Catholic faith. He, a Catholic Priest, believed his interpretation of Catholicism adhered more closely to scripture than what most of his peers were preaching. His followers interpreted his teachings and eventually formed new, Christian sects with different rules and customs, but they believe their refinements are more true to Christ’s teachings.
Kate, Rufus T. Firefly:
I was a believing, practicing Christian who paid attention, read the Bible and studied. I understand the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. That’s not the issue I’m addressing.
If I were a Jew, I would be annoyed to hear a Christian making the claim that to be a good Christian, one must first be a good Jew. I wouldn’t be too keen either as a Christian, if a Jew called me a good, albeit heretical, Jew.
Perhaps it’s a small point.
Well, huxley, you’re right that it’s not a good approach to evangelism, and as stated, I don’t think it’s what JPII meant. No Catholic converts are ever asked to first become observant Jews before baptism and confirmation. It was rhetorical.
On the same note, I have some experience with Christians who evangelize among Muslims. No matter how much we disagree with Islam and its view of God, it doesn’t strike Muslims as even sensible when people tell them that “Allah” isn’t God, when “Allah” means “God,” and the word is used by Arabic-speaking Christians.
huxley,
First, I’d laugh if a Jew called me “a good, albeit heretical, Jew.” That’s funny and I would assume the statement was made in good humor, as an indication that we are compatriots on similar journeys. I often joke with Jewish friends about Jesus, as they do with me.
I believe I understand your point, and it is clear others take JP II’s statement as you did, but my guess is your interpretation is not the intent JP II had in making the statement. Jesus was Jewish. Catholics worship Jesus. JP II certainly did. I cannot think of one aspect of Jesus’ Jewishness that JP II did not love and revere. Jesus never denounced Judaism. I think we should take Him at His word.
Think of my Martin Luther example. Martin Luther would have absolutely agreed with the statement, “To understand the 95 theses Reverend Luther posted on the door of the church in Wittenberg one must first be a good Catholic.*”
*I think there is a good chance JP II would have also agreed with that statement.
Rufus T. Firefly, Kate:
I’m not addressing what JP II meant or loved, but how it would be heard by some.
It’s also a different situation to be joking around with friends, which I assume the Pope wasn’t.
Kate @ 10:38am,
Regarding your comment about observance, there are Christians that observe different calendars, different dates for Holidays. There are Christians who do not eat meat on Fridays. Some who do not during Lent. Some who fast. Some for whom fasting means one meal/day. Some for whom fasting means three, modest meals/day.
There are Jews who will not turn on an electric light on the Sabbath. Jews who do. Which one is Jewish?
I’m not trying to be nitpicky, I’m just trying to clarify what I believe JP II was stating. Jesus was Jewish. Christians are Jewish. Jesus taught you could reinterpret some Mosaic law, for example helping someone in need on the Sabbath. He wasn’t teaching against Moses. He was teaching against the popular interpretation.
Matthew 5:17
I think that’s what Pope John Paul II meant by his statement.
huxley,
As I stated, I agree some heard it that way. My point is I think they heard it incorrectly. We know a lot about Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II). He said and wrote a lot of things. Much about his life has been recorded. With all I know about him and what he said and wrote, publicly insulting Jews or the Jewish faith is inconsistent with how he lived.
Rufus T. Firefly; huxley; Kate:
I haven’t followed the whole discussion about this “fulfill” thing, but it is my distinct impression that the idea that Christianity is a more “fulfilled” Judaism is not something that Jews agree with at all, and it is often considered an insult whether it is meant that way or not. I have also heard the term “completed” used, with the same results.
As for whether someone in need can be helped on the Sabbath, I don’t know the Biblical reference (either Jewish or Christian) to which you refer. But in Judaism, there are exceptions to the rules in order to help people, even for Orthodox Jews (the only ones who really observe the rules in the first place):
I will add that my impression of Pope JPII is that he respected Jews and Judaism.
neo,
Funny! I finished a comment on a different one of your posts and looked up at the “Recent Comments” roll and saw you had just commented on this one. My first thought was, “Uh oh, I’m in trouble!” I’ll post a passage from the New Testament in a follow up comment as one of the times Jesus was accused of violating the Sabbath by working. It doesn’t sound like you’d agree with his persecutors.
I only put the “fulfilled” quote in my comment to reference that, by all accounts, Jesus considered Himself a Jew. It’s fair to assume Pope John Paul II regarded every word Jesus spoke as absolute truth, so Pope John Paul II considered Jesus a Jew. I’m sort-of making a “transitive property” logical statement. (Obviously few if any* Jews believe Jesus fulfilled Jewish law.) So, if one thinks about how John Paul II viewed Jesus one can understand his statement, “… to be a good Catholic one must first be a good Jew…” as a tribute to Jews and their faith. That is how I believe he meant it.
And that’s why I use my Martin Luther example as something perhaps more contemporaneous and less contentious. Martin Luther thought he was correcting mistakes he saw at the time in Catholic worship. The last thing Martin Luther wanted to do was harm Catholicism. He certainly did not want to form a new religion(s). A Protestant could fairly say, “To be a good Lutheran you must first be a good Catholic,” and mean it sincerely. I understand many Catholics may take offense at that, thinking the speaker means to denigrate Catholicism, but a true, pure view of the history makes that a relevant, accurate and non-insulting statement.
*There are the “Jews for Jesus” folks, but that seems to be splitting hairs.
Luke 6:6
Rufus T. Firefly:
Yes, as I said, John Paul II was very respectful of Jews and Judaism, as far as I know.
Luther, of course, was a rabid Jew-hater. I realize you brought him up for a reason unrelated to his opinion of Judaism, however.
Hopefully I haven’t muddied things too much in my attempts to clarify. I’ll write it succinctly here.
Based on what I know of Pope John Paul II he loved Jews and would never do anything to denigrate them, or their religion. I believe he made the statement in dispute in an attempt to show that love and reverence. I understand how some people can interpret his words offensively. Hopefully I explained how he statement can also have a reverential interpretation.
neo,
Yeah… I have quite a few good friends who are Lutherans and I do find his anti-semitism a hard square to circle. However, more than a few Catholic Popes committed worse atrocities against the Jews. The problem with most religions I’ve studied is they appear to consist of humans and humans can do some awful stuff.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I wonder whether that really happened that way. If it did, it certainly doesn’t appear to reflect Jewish thought since then. What the Pharisees thought or did two thousand years ago on that subject has little to nothing to do with Judaism in general (Talmudic) and in particular with Judaism in recent years. Note that the allowance for saving a life isn’t just an allowance, it is a mandate.
…. and so, trying to do something good in Karol Wojtyla’s memory I have now completely sullied and defiled neo’s Happy New Year 5782 post!
I apologize and will now slink back under my rock.
Rufus T. Firefly:
I assume you’re being funny in your comment right above this one – but as I said, I happen to agree with you about JP II.
Let me add, though, that the “Jews for Jesus” folks are the ones who get into that “fulfilled” stuff. A lot. They are quite active and vocal, and I think that’s germane to the discussion – although it has nothing to do with Pope JP II.
Yes! My 2:16pm comment was absolutely meant in jest.
I seem to be having trouble communicating clearly today. You, huxley and Kate are all level headed folks and I’ve seemed to aggravate all three of you. I best take a break, burn a few thousand calories exercising, and try to clear my muddled noggin’.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams quoting God, “I apologize for the inconvenience.”
Rufus T. Firefly:
You didn’t aggravate or annoy me in the least.
1. To save a life it is definitely permitted to violate the Sabbath or suspend other observances. This is learned from Leviticus 18:5:
Keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.
The Talmud’s gloss on this: (the commandments were given) that they shall live by them – and not that they should die from them.
2. Most New Testament stories of the Pharisees are axe-grinding and innaccurate, and often occur in the later books written by Gentiles who never set foot in Judea. They reflect a later period of Christian anger at Jewish rejection of the sect that had drifted too far from Judaism – in particular, the split caused by recasting Jesus from a flesh-and-blood messiah to a godhead. These stories are the first instances of Christian demonization of Jews.
3. Pope John Paul’s rapprochement with Judaism stemmed from his up-close experiences of WW2 and communism. Like President Reagan he was one of the first to articulate the cultural and moral dangers facing the Judeo Christian West, and he attempted to cleanse the Church of 60s “liberation theology” radicalism. So statements like Nostre Aetate were a sort of warning that “if we don’t hang together we shall hang separately”.
What I said originally.
__________________________________
As I recall, Pope John Paul II once said that to be a good Catholic one must first be a good Jew. Which sounded like a woopsie to me.
I can imagine why he would say that, but I’m not sure his Jewish friends would entirely appreciate it.
Still, JP II worked hard to mend fences with Jews. Due credit.
__________________________________
Which IMO covers much of the conversation since.
BenDavid, I won’t argue your point #2; this isn’t the time and place, and this thread is about mutual respect, anyhow. But I do want to know whether what I’ve been told is correct, that is, that of the various Jewish sects and ways of thinking in existence around the time of Jesus, the one that became the mainstream of the continuing Judaism following the destruction of the Second Temple was the Pharisees.
Jesus himself was a rabbi of the Pharisee school (or group)—the word “pharisee” coming from the Hebrew “peh-rush”, which means “interpretation” or “meaning”.
(Gosh, a Jew criticizing other Jews! Whodathunkit??)
The religio-ideological opponents of the Perusheem (i.e., Pharisees”) were the Zadokim (or “Sadducees”) named after high priest called Zadok (pronounced Tzadok, a word related to “Tzedek” (justice) and “Tzedakah” (charity or justness). This was (or had become by Herodian times) an elitist, priestly class whose ideology and rulings were believed by the Perusheem to be essentially counter to Jewish law and the spirit of that law (in the sense of being archaic, unevolved and politically motivated).
So, yes, it is rather ironic that the “Pharisees” have become the villains of the drama, though clearly, Yeshua’s Pharisee colleagues may have believed that their fellow Pharisee had, in some of his interpretations, gone overboard…
Thank you, Barry Meislin.
They clearly did believe he’d gone overboard. In fact, they thought him a blasphemer.
As a matter of interest, Arabic-speaking Christians still call him “Yeshua,” not the Muslim “Issa,” who is quite a different character in their ideology.
Augmenting Barry Meislin:
Judaism always had an oral tradition alongside the written, received law. This tradition included details of observance, homiletical/philosophical material, and folk stories that complement the Biblical telling of events with personal experiences. It is mentioned obliquely when the Bible describes Moses sitting to judge the people all day (Exodus 18:13) and in other verses describing the lay leadership if the heads of the 12 tribes.
In Judaism’s view prophecy waned after the 1st Temple. The return from Babylon is led by the last minor prophets and by men of lesser Divine inspiration such as Ezra and Nehemiah. Without the monarchy, leadership passes to the descendants of Moses and the elders. The era of Rabbinical Judaism begins – those who preserve and learn both the written and oral traditions.
By the time of Jesus the continued lack of full sovereignty and an increasingly corrupt priesthood solidify the position of the Sanhedrin.
The zedukim/sadducees rejected the oral tradition and its laws. They are largely associated with the Hellenized, corrupt priestly class cultivated by the Romans.
So Pharisee means 2 things:
1. Those who uphold the oral tradition of interpretation (perush).
2. Those who remained separate (parash) from the general trend of Hellenic culture and assimilation into the Roman empire.
There are other sects at this time such as the Essenes.
Orthodox Jews are the direct descendants of the Pharisees. This has been mainstream Judaism for 2000 years.
The modern era has seen new versions of the sadducee approach and other attempts by assimilating Jews to reduce Judaism to universal principles and shed its restrictions – so-called “Reform Judaism” and “Reconstructionist Judaism”.
Without insulting anyone else’s understanding of Jesus: the Talmud’s take on the man called Jesus is that he started out as a student of a Pharisee teacher, then became “radicalized” – both religiously and politically. He is one of tens of thousands of young scholar-soldiers who joined the revolt against Rome. There were many more than 3 crucifixes on the Jerusalem skyline in that era.
Kate:
BenDavid, I won’t argue your point #2; this isn’t the time and place, and this thread is about mutual respect, anyhow.
——–
Indeed the divinity of Jesus is the main point of difference. John Paul resolved this elegantly in Nostre Aetate by saying that G-d still honored the covenant with the Jews, and Jews could still relate to G-d through that covenant.
And i think John Paul saw that the shared portion – the moral and political conlusions of monotheism and the brotherhood of mankind, and the law of Moses that expresses them – were under prolonged, virulent attack. If anything the battle has gotten fiercer since then. Religious Christians and Jews are very much in the same bunker in the current cultural/political/moral struggle for the soul of the West.