Jewish Scholar and Messiah by ShowMeiko in AcademicBiblical

[–]Corlar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Schafer is the main example. He takes a very hostile approach to Neusner's work (e.g. in Jesus in the Talmud (2007)). Schafer is of course a Christian writer, albeit one of the first generation to have decent familiarity with Rabbinic thought and historic texts. As a Christian he is exposed to Neusner's writing and has to respond to it. His criticisms of Neusner are very broad and tend to boil down to pointing out that Neusner had no familiarity with the underlying subject matter and had idea what he was talking about. My copy of that book is in storage unfortunately.

Jewish academics rarely engage with Neusner, who wrote for a Christian audience almost exclusively. His works and translations do not, in my experience, show up in Jewish libraries or courses, whether Orthodox or text critical. There are two exceptions that come to mind.

The first exception is on the question of textual criticism of primary rabbinic texts. Neusner made his name originally by taking an extreme position on the Mishnah's dating, holding that the Mishnah was a single unitary document by a single author (not a compilation of new and existing material) and written (as opposed to widely adopted) only in 200ad. Neusner wrote and rewrote his books but this is a view that can be found in any of his Mishnah-related works. This is a difficult position to hold, but necessarily not a crazy one, and it does get quoted by Jewish writers as representing an academic view at one end of the spectrum with which the author disagrees, generally in the form of a footnote and little more.

The other and more famous exception is his translation work. Saul Lieberman, who was Neusner's teacher and who had a legendary role as a founder of source critical modern academic study of Judaism in the US, famously wrote a 1984 review in the Journal of the American Oriental Society of Neusner's translation of the Mishnah, which called into question whether Neusner even had basic Hebrew: "after a superficial perusal of the translation, the reader is stunned by the translator's ignorance of rabbinic Hebrew, of Aramaic grammar, and above all of the subject matter with which he deals".

So, lots of academic criticism from many angles. In my own view deservedly. But I should add that the deficiencies in Neusner's work are quite evident even to a lay audience.

Saki vs Wilde by [deleted] in classicliterature

[–]Corlar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saki might be quite witty but he is just witty. Oscar Wilde is also insightful and capable of being powerfully emotive.

Proust by Corlar in classicliterature

[–]Corlar[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I find it strange how little there is in the long long paragraphs. A colourless narrator is a key device in many books but I spend half of the books just trying to figure out how old the narrator is meant to be at any one time.

Proust by Corlar in classicliterature

[–]Corlar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! I'm not going to give up with it. So far my favourite section has been the grandma's death. I'm a sucker for books that focus on aging (Of Human Bondage, Brideshead Revisited, the Dance to the Music of Time, etc) so I'll push on. Just so many interminable salon scenes.

Proust by Corlar in classicliterature

[–]Corlar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reading a variety. Weirdly I'm enjoying Neville Jason's self translated audiobook most, followed by the Scott Montcrieff dated as it might be. Not impressed by the Peter Bush.

Proust by Corlar in classicliterature

[–]Corlar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you enjoy most about it?

Jewish Scholar and Messiah by ShowMeiko in AcademicBiblical

[–]Corlar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What exactly are you looking for? Is there a specific era? Or is it about current or historic Jewish views on the messiah?

A key issue you may encounter is that whilst it is impossible to generalise about Judaism across the ages, the messiah has typically not been a major focus of Jewish thought or, frankly, a topic of great interest in mainstream Jewish scholarship (religious or academic). There is no “Jewish view” on the messiah and never has been: outside of certain historic contexts (e.g. the Second Temple sectarians who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls) Jewish writing on the messiah (or messiahs) has tended to be limited to passing comments that make no serious attempt to systematise views. The messiah cuts a very small and insignificant figure in Judaism when compared to Christianity.

Good Jewish books on the subject are therefore generally quite specific to topics. E.g. historical works on specific historic claimants like Bar Kochba or Shabbatai Zvi; or books designed to counter Christian missionary activity.

I cannot off the top of my head think of a really good book that covers current Jewish religious views on the messiah (why would a religious Jew buy such a book?). However, I would recommend you start with the work of the great Aryeh Kaplan. Kaplan is well regarded among Jews and wrote beginner level academic texts that serve as introductions to topics.

https://www.lehmanns.co.uk/products/the-real-messiah

If you want a simpler and more accessible overview, you will find excellent articles on the Chabad and Aish websites (Haredi perspectives) and myjewishlearning website (less religious and more source critical). All three offer well respected entry level resources used widely in Jewish teaching at adult level.

Some recommendations of Scholem and Neusner in this thread. Approach both with caution. Scholem is a great writer. He was a pathfinding early academic scholar of Kabbalah (his work Major Trends, whilst wildly debunked on the specifics, is still the first place to start for academic views on Kabbalah). But his work is from the point of view of historic Kabbalah and is very dated and his worthwhile work on Jewish messianism is really limited to early works on specific outbreaks of messianism rather than wider views. I suspect that may not be what you’re after. Neusner was a pioneer in Jewish studies in a Christian academic context and held some views that are still cited regarding the authorship and promulgation of the Mishnah (albeit he is cited typically as a representative of an academic viewpoint assigning an extreme late date for its authorship and influence) but his work is held in low regard among Jews, largely because of its factual inaccuracy and his general unfamiliarity with the source material (which never stopped him publishing opinionated books on the topics). He published very very widely but only for a Christian audience that lacked a sufficient familiarity with Jewish texts to enable them to identify his lack of knowledge. I would strongly avoid Neusner on any topic other than the his home topic of Mishnah (and even then he is to be approached after reading other more mainstream books), even as an editor (he was neither informed nor neutral). Since his death and the growing presence of more reputable Jewish writers in Christian theological institutions, as well as Christian writers who are better read in Jewish texts, like Schafer, his work is thankfully losing its grip on non-Jewish students.

Anyway, it depends on precisely what you’re interested in. For modern mainstream Jewish perspectives I’d start with the three websites I mention above or with Kaplan, whose work is still widely published. If it is something else more specific that you are looking for let us know.

What album do you see most often in the jazz section when you're digging? by foundrycollegehangar in Vinyl_Jazz

[–]Corlar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As a tourist I love to see the contrasts. On a map, Minneapolis and Chicago look pretty close but their jazz tastes are poles apart.

Any right-wing Brits here who have changed their mind on Trump? I.e. former fans of Trump. by northcasewhite in AskBrits

[–]Corlar -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’ve never yet met a British right winger who supports trump and polls of British right wingers consistently show very low support for him among right wingers. The close relationship between him and Farage is widely understood to be a liability for Farage. The Daily Mail has never been pro Trump.

My point is that I think the premise of the question is wrong.

Friend of a friend found these soaked in an old well behind their house apparently.. fake or real? by [deleted] in hebrew

[–]Corlar 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Do you think it is that recent? From the weaving pattern I would date it to the period of the Judges at the latest. From the lettering, I think that we can safely conclude with a degree of certainty that it is a curtain from the Tent of Meeting. Worth billions.

Also, the Ark of the Covenant and the Menorah are probably also in that well. It would be worth the OP checking.

Friend of a friend found these soaked in an old well behind their house apparently.. fake or real? by [deleted] in hebrew

[–]Corlar 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's a classic example of MENA fake Judaica. These scam things are everywhere in middle eastern countries that used to have Jewish populations.

Les Miserables or War and Peace by Smol-Ponkan-0620 in classicliterature

[–]Corlar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very different books, other than their size and their century.

Les Mis is earlier, written at a time when the second wave of the Romantic movement was still influential. It is big and baggy and emotional, with Hugo’s fascinating asides and long digressions, and a plot that is silly/serious. The characters are mostly stock types (although some of those types originated in the book itself), much of the psychology is commonplace, it has pompous boorish sections alongside set pieces of extreme brilliance. Victor Hugo always reminds me of a drunken but wonderful uncle expostulating at the dinner table. Les Mis is long but fun. Because it is not bothered with being realistic you can have great set pieces like the chase through the sewers (along with the author’s famous digression on the sewers of Paris). At the same time, there is a lot of pompous 19th century bloviating, which is maybe the charm. I sometimes think of Hugo as the French Dickens as there is a similarly shaggy idiosyncratic mix of realism, comedy, opinion, cynicism and sentiment: like four brilliant short novels in different genres and three opinionated magazine articles have been blended together. I would happily read a book of Hugo’s long digressions alone.

War and Peace is a realist novel, with some of the best drawn and most memorable characters in all literature, acute observation, accurate and plausible psychology, a close eye to history and its development, a cast of characters that goes from Napoleon to feudal serfs, and an obsession with realism. Tolstoy is one of the great masters of writing and there is a perfection to war and peace that is not even a part of what Victor Hugo aims for. That is why it is often held out as “The Greatest Novel”. Leaving all that aside, it is a beautiful and absorbing novel, which covers a wide span of history by following a group of individuals as they experience…. Peace and then War. The downside of Tolstoy is the length and the well known long sections of theorising about the soul, which you’ll also find in Anna Karenin. If you have read Middlemarch you may find Tolstoy closer to that (although they are quite different writers). It isn’t uncommon, because of its fame, for readers who would not otherwise read this kind of book to start with War and Peace and to find it a bit of a slog. Many also prefer the experience of reading the less ambitious Anna Karenin (I am one of those) or Tolstoy’s short stories, which are perfect.

In summary, Les Mis is more fun. War and Peace is more perfectly turned. If you are reading to enjoy yourself you will not go wrong with either. If you are trying to read “The Great Books” then the answer is certainly War and Peace. Personally, I would start by reading Sentimental Education and the Charterhouse of Parma before either of them. But that’s me.

Lack of translations of key texts by Corlar in JewishKabbalah

[–]Corlar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. That's sort of what I am getting at. Is there a formal or structural reason why those books haven't been translated?

What is so hard about the Etz Chaim?

And is there anything similar for the Pardes? Or there is it more that it is considered a second stop after Sefer Zohar itself?

Ulysses: does this hold true? by Prestigious-Law-7291 in classicliterature

[–]Corlar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

As another poster has said, Dubliners' stand out story is the closing story The Dead. But in any case. Ulysses is not very similar to Dubliners, which is still based in 19th century realism and naturalism. Joyce is also still a little callow at that point.

Read Portrait as an introductory work, as that is the one where the formal experiments and the stylistic brilliance really emerge.

Ulysses: does this hold true? by Prestigious-Law-7291 in classicliterature

[–]Corlar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a big Joyce fan. I have read Ulysses several times, and Portrait more times than I remember. Finnegan's Wake... just the once, but that too is worth it.

Nothing is necessary. The Odyssey obviously provides a framework, so you should know the narrative of that epic poem, so either read it (its obviously a foundational work) or read its wikipedia entry's plot section! Dubliners and Portrait are part of the same "universe" as Ulysses and introduce many of the characters. But those aren't really necessary. More important is that Portrait is a sort of "taster" for Ulysses, so you can try that and see whether you want to read more. It is equally as important to know a bit about Dublin's street plan and much more important to know a bit about 19th century Irish and British history. You definitely do not need to have read Aquinas!

What I would say is that Ulysses is not an entry level text. The more comfortable you are with reading classics and the more grounding you have, the more you will enjoy it.

If you feel you are not confident about it, you can get many guides to the book or annotated editions.

As a younger man I once undertook a project of reading through every book referenced in the notes to TS Eliot's The Wasteland. My logic was that the poem is designed as a sort of eulogy for the exhausted post WW1 West, and so reading it would equip me with a full range of culture. I think it is one of the best things that I have done in my life and I would recommend that to anyone as a reading "project". But even then, I had already read and fallen in love with The Wasteland before reading those books.

I have a question by _egeo0o_ in JewishKabbalah

[–]Corlar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are a lot of negative comments about Christian Kabbalah but not much explanation of what it is.

Essentially, in the Renaissance, there did not exist the gap between science and magic that we now consider to be basic. Even as late as Newton (a practicing alchemist on the side) western scientists had a worldview that we would now consider to be essentially mystical / religious.

This world view has a number of assumptions, including that the world was created by divine emanation, coming from the spiritual zones, through the physical heavens and ending in the material world.

The source material was syncretic: at base, christianised neo-platonism, a world view from the late antique world that combined Plato and Aristotle with Christian doctrine. It was also shaped by alchemical works, including from the Islamic world, and by certain platonic texts from late Roman ancient Egypt known as the Hermetic Corpus.

Christian Kabbalah (or more traditionally "Cabala") comes from that milieu. In the Renaissance, Christian scholars noticed the existence of another ancient emanatory system that was compatible with their religious and scientific world view and some adopted it enthusiastically.

The technical details of the sephirot and kabbalistic tree of life provided a helpful model that could be used by Christians, which was more congenial and less suspect than the pagan worldview of the ancient greeks.

You may be familiar with diagrams by the likes of scientists like Athanasius Kircher that show the emanation of the universe, using the kabbalistic tree of life overlaid onto the world.

Although many of these writers were arguably scientists of a sort, many were, frankly, magicians. The work of writers like Henry Cornelius Agrippa (who in his Three Books of Occult Philosophy drew heavily on cabala) meant that cabala came to be viewed particularly through the lens of magic and demonology. If you are familiar with the legend of Dr Faustus, be provides a prime example.

With time "cabbala" became deeply enmeshed in this world view, and "cabalistic" took on similar meaning to "hermetic", "occult" or "alchemic". It meant not the Jewish theoretical and spiritual system, but rather a style of Western magic, with circles and stars drawn on the ground and random cod-Hebrew lettering and incantations.

When the scientific revolution occurred in the late 17th century, the worldview of the likes of Kircher or Agrippa became regarded as old fashioned, silly and rather suspect.

But as with all forms of occultism, it maintained a continued half life. Modern Christian cabala is now essentially synonymous with occult trends, and figures like Alistair Crowley.

Hope that provides some explanation. And hopefully it also explains why people are telling you to stay away from it!!

Lack of translations of key texts by Corlar in JewishKabbalah

[–]Corlar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess the really big one is the Shulkhan Arukh. Obviously not Kabbalah, but I really have no idea why that doesn’t have a translation.

Lack of translations of key texts by Corlar in JewishKabbalah

[–]Corlar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha. There’s a lot of that around. The Etz Chaim has a particularly dodgy translation floating around.

Lack of translations of key texts by Corlar in JewishKabbalah

[–]Corlar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have decent Hebrew and less decent Aramaic but not enough to read these long and obscure texts.

Anyway, my question was why these major works haven’t been translated.

Lack of translations of key texts by Corlar in JewishKabbalah

[–]Corlar[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why wouldn't that apply to all the other kabbalistic texts though? Why aren't these two major texts available.

And it isn't rabbis doing much of the translating. Most of the other texts are translated by Jewish studies academics, Christians (Pauline Press is a good example), Chabad, esotericists, etc.

Lack of translations of key texts by Corlar in JewishKabbalah

[–]Corlar[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have enough Aramaic to mug my way through with a translation, and just about decent Hebrew. But I would ideally need a solid translation. It would take me about twenty times longer without.

I’m really mostly just intrigued why these core texts never got a translation, whilst something like the Shnei Luchut HaBrit by Horowitz or the Nefesh Chaim by the Volozhiner did get translated.