Television 1: Firing Line

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Jewish prayerbooks

John Hobbins is a Methodist preacher with polymath interests, so it is not surprising that he has turned his attention to Jewish prayerbooks.  John writes in an opinionated, and sometimes provocative and hyperbolic fashion, so rather than paraphrase his opinions, I will simply quote him:

The first thing you will want to do after reading the review is pre-order the about-to-be-published KorenSacks siddur, a great alternative to ArtScroll provincialism. I fail to see how one can read Lockshin’s comments without taking that step, if one cares to daven with all one’s mind, soul, and strength. To be sure, I find Sacks’ apologetics and rhetorical strategy sappy-sweet and unconvincing often enough. But it is not nearly as mind-numbing as ArtScroll’s approach tends to be. With Sacks’ siddur in one hand and Tabory’s JPS Commentary to the Haggadah (great price here) in the other, I will soon be in seventh heaven.

I wish to mention that other than Sack’s new prayerbook (which is not yet published), I own and have read all of the books listed in this post.

About Jewish Prayer

I wish to give my own discussion of Jewish English prayerbooks here.  First, let me discuss how Jewish prayer is different than Christian prayer.  Normative Jewish prayer occurs in groups of ten or more (a minyan).  It occurs three times a day; and more often on most holidays and on the Sabbath.  Orthodox Jewish prayer is long – a Saturday morning service may take 4 hours; regular morning prayers take 1 to 1.5 hours.  On some days, e.g., Yom Kippur, the entire day is spent in prayer.  Prayer is not lead by a rabbi (but by a chazzan or cantor – in some congregations, this is not a fixed position but rotates through all of the regular attendees), and no rabbi is necessary to conduct the prayer service.  Each praying member prays almost the entire service himself.  The service is prayed entirely in Hebrew (and Aramaic).  (However, prayer in English is considered valid.)

As this brief description makes clear, Jewish prayer services are rather unlike typical Christian Sunday services or masses.  In a traditional Latin Catholic mass, the service is conducted by the clergy and the audience watches the service.  In a Protestant megachurch setting, the audience may sing some songs, but the focus is on the sermon and Bible lesson.  Neither of these match well with Jewish prayer.

If one had to find a Christian analogue to Jewish prayer, it would be the liturgy of the hours in religious communities (e.g., Benedictine) where long sessions of prayer happen multiple times a day.  But even this analogy is loose, and Jewish prayer contains many unique features.

Before attempting Jewish prayer, it is helpful to understand more about the intricate structure of Jewish prayer.  There are a number of books that survey this:  two books that I like are Adin Steinsaltz’s Guide to Jewish Prayer and Elie Munk’s World of Prayer.  John mentions annotations in his post, but in fact, reading one of these overviews will serve one much better than reading the footnotes in a prayerbook.

ArtScroll prayerbook

Today, among Orthodox synagogues in the US with substantial English-speaking membership, the most popular prayerbooks (siddurim) are editions by ArtScroll and by Kehot (the latter are particularly widespread in Hassidic and Chabad synagogues).

25 years ago, before the arrival of ArtScroll, the situation in Hebrew-English prayerbooks was a bit sad.  The main problem was merely typography.  The reprints over the years had worn out the type and the Hebrew was difficult to read and sometimes completely unintelligible.  A second problem was that instructions (to stand up, sit down, etc.) were often omitted or written in Hebrew only, making it difficult for many newcomers to follow.  A third problem is that there are many liturgical songs and special prayers called piyyutim that were included or omitted in prayerbooks on a somewhat arbitrary basis.

ArtScroll addressed all of these problems and became a huge success as a result.  The Hebrew type in their prayerbooks is crystal clear; instructions are written out in English, and there is a wide variety of piyyutim included all carefully marked as optional.   It is because of the latter that ArtScroll prayerbooks are so much thicker than other Hebrew-English prayerbooks.

Beyond this, ArtScroll heavily innovated.  ArtScroll, which comes from the more haredi-oriented wing of Orthodox Judaism, published an edition for modern Orthodox, the RCA ArtScroll.  It is interesting to note that ArtScroll’s excellence was so striking that even their main intellectual opponents (the Modern Orthodox) in the Jewish world turned to ArtScroll to produce their standard prayerbook.

ArtScroll proceeded to publish Ashkenazi and Sephardic editions of their prayerbooks; to publish a full set of machzorim (again both in Ashkenazi and Separdic editions); and then produced interlinear editions (for those learning Hebrew) and transliterated editions with Roman characters (for newcomers unable to quickly sight-read prayerbooks) and corresponding editions of the machzorim and the psalter.

To date, I have seen no plans for anything close to ArtScroll program of prayerbook publications.  Merely on the basis of the included piyyutim, and the large variety of editions for Hebrew-learners, I think ArtScroll’s dominance in the prayerbook world is unlikely to be challenged.

Now, let me turn to the most controversial part of the ArtScroll prayerbooks – their annotations.  First, let me say it is easy to ignore these annotations since they are unobtrusive.  The annotations reflect a classical Talmudic view of prayer from a haredi perspective.  John calls this perspective “provincial” but I think that word misses the right nuance; I would instead call them “traditional.”

Annotated Prayerbooks

If one wishes a more scholarly annotated prayerbook, an excellent choice is the ten volume set (which won the National Jewish Book Award) called My People’s Prayer Book.  These comprehensive volumes include about nine independent running commentaries on the prayers, examining the prayer from a variety of perspectives.  The publisher’s blurb says (and mostly holds true to this promise):  “most respected scholars and teachers from all perspectives of the Jewish world. They explore the text from the perspectives of ancient Rabbis and modern theologians, as well as feminist, halakhic, medieval, linguistic, biblical, Chasidic, mystical, and historical perspectives.”

Individual volumes include:

1. The Sh’ma and its Blessings
2. The Amidah
3. P’sukei D’zimrah (Morning Psalms)
4. Seder K’riyat Hatorah (Shabbat Torah Service)
5. Birkhot Hashashar (Morning Blessings)
6. Tachanun and Concluding Prayers
7. Shabbat at Home
8. Kabbalat Shabbat (Welcoming Shabbat in the Synagogue)
9. Welcoming the Night: Minchah and Ma’aarim (Afternoon and Evening Prayers)
10. Shabbat Morning: Shacharit and Musaf (Morning and Afternoon Services)

There is a matching Haggadah as well, described below

For Machzorim, a very special and highly idiosyncratic (and advanced) commentary on the machzorim can be found in editions that incorporate lessons from Joseph Soloveitchik.  Since the Rav often talked at length about the High Holy Days, there is a wide variety of excellent material available.  Because these volumes are actually printed and distributed by ArtScroll, they maintain the advantages of superior typography common to all ArtScroll editions.

Finally, I wish to again recommend Steinsaltz’s and Munk’s books mentioned above for a general overview of prayer.

Sack’s prayerbook

Jonathan Sacks is the head of the United Synagogue, one of many Jewish groups in Britain.  He is thus accorded the title “Chief Rabbi” (somewhat misleadingly).  He is a prolific author, and has published a number of excellent works.  In particular, he oversaw the preparation of the 2005 Authorized Daily Prayerbook, which is fine, although lacks many of the advantages of the ArtScroll.  Sacks has reportedly prepared an annotated edition of this book which will be published by Koren (which, like ArtScroll, is famous for beautiful typesetting of Hebrew books.)  Amazon reports this new prayerbook will be distributed this week, and I eagerly look forward to reading comments on it.

In the meanwhile, you can read two reviews from people who actually saw preliminary editions of this:  Elli Fischer (who is active in the conservadox egalitarian prayer movement) and the unique “Mississippi Fred MacDowell”.  Both of them illustrate their points with quotes.

John sharply criticizes Sacks, as quoted above, “I find Sacks’ apologetics and rhetorical strategy sappy-sweet and unconvincing often enough.”  I’m not sure if John actually saw the as yet unpublished siddur or if he is referring to some other work by Sacks; but his praise for the new siddur seem faint.  But it seems that I appreciated Sacks considerably more than John does.  Based on my reading of a similarly styled work; Sacks’ annotated Hagaddah, I have high hopes that this new siddur will be an excellent addition to Jewish libraries.  We will have to see though – I don’t want to review a book before I read it.

Nonetheless, if only because the number of editions is so sharply limited compared to the many dozens of editions available from ArtScroll, I doubt that Sacks’ siddur will make much headway at first.

Annotated Hagaddah

In passing, John also mentions the JPS Haggadah; and he is the first person that I’ve seen praise that work (although it has its merits).  I think there are many better choices, though.  I would not directly compare the Haggadah text (which is primarily talmudic in style) with a prayerbook, but as long as he raises the issue, I suggest these annotated Haggados instead:

• The Schechter Haggadah:  Art, History, and Commentary (historical presentation)
• Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’s Haggadah (general coverage with extensive essays)
• Exalted Evening (the best of the hagaddahs containing Joseph Soloveitchik’s commentary)
• My People’s Passover Haggadah (two volumes: volume 1 and volume 2; similar to the ten-volume prayerbook mentioned above with multiple running commentaries)
• Kol Menachem Haggadah (with commentary based on technical and difficult lessons from the previous chief Chabad Rebbe.)
• Haggadah of the Sages (from Carda, critical and Talmudically focused)

On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with the Maxwell House Haggadah – it is, after all, free.

Translations of Paul

Tim (at Catholic Bibles) raises issues of translations of Paul.  In Tim’s post NT Wright + NIV = Not Friends, Tim notes that in N. T. Wright’s Justification:  God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (I have just received this book and have not started reading it yet) that Wright pans the NIV translation of the Pauline epistles.

Here is Tim’s account:

[Wright] begins by stating that he had recommended use of the NIV early in the 1980's, believing that it injected "no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses (51)." However, over a two year period, while lecturing with the NIV and the Greek text, he discovered that "the translators had had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said (52)." He follows that up by saying: "I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about (52)." Ouch! He sites the NIV translation of Romans 3:21-26 & 29 as a major problem, particularly in its use of dikaiosu.

As an example, Tim quotes Wright:

In other words, "the righteousness of God" in Romans 3:21 is only allowed to mean "the righteous status which comes to people from God", whereas the equivalent term in Romans 3:25 and 3:26 clearly refers to God's own righteousness-which is presumably why the NIV has translated it as "justice", to avoid having the reader realize the deception. In the following paragraph, a similar telltale translation flaw occurs, to which again we shall return. In Romans 3:29, Paul introduces the question, "Is God the God of Jews only?" with the single-letter word "e", normally translated "or"; "Or is God the God of Jews only?"- in other words, if the statement of Romans 3:28 were to be challenged, it would look as though God were the God of Jews only. But the NIV standing firmly in the tradition that sees no organic connection between justification by faith on the one hand and the inclusion of Gentiles within God's people on the other, resists this clear implication by omitting the word altogether (52-53).

I was well aware of Wright’s criticism of the translation of the Pauline epistles from minicourse Romans in a Week at Regent College.

I note further that these errors have not been corrected in the TNIV. 

Finally, I note that N. T. Wright himself has translated and annotated most of the New Testament in his For Everyone translation series.

I think that Wright’s points are well taken.  However, it is interesting to contrast his decision with my preferred textbooks for introductory study for Paul.  I prefer the Wayne Meek’s Writings of St. Paul (published in the Norton Critical Edition) for its inclusion of pseudo-Pauline sources and wide set of reactions from Jews, pagans, church fathers, Marcionites, gnostics, and gentiles across the spectrum, together with later commentary from across the spectrum of thought.  This work appeared in two editions, both of which are still in print (and both are worth buying).  I note that the second edition (co-edited by John Fitzgerald) uses the TNIV translation (although with copious notes); the first edition sticks with the RSV translation.

These volumes are useful for a critical study of Paul, especially in a secular setting.  They are a fine purchase choice as our Catholic friends wrap up their Jubilee Year of Paul.

Bad news on the beverage front

A new trend: Restaurants charging for water

My question – is there a corkage fee if one brings in his own canteen?

Star Trek

Like all other good Americans this weekend, I went to see the new J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie.  I didn’t actually expect the movie to be good – I hoped it would be entertaining, and the action-filled sequences did satisfy.  As art, this certainly can’t compare with Tarkovsky’s Solaris (or even Steven Soderbergh’s).  But people don’t go to movies like Star Trek to address big philosophical problems – they go because they enjoy seeing certain character types interact (and, of course, save the universe.)  However, I must confess I got more entertainment from Anthony Lane’s review than the actual film.

I did enjoy the Spock character – in the original Star Trek series, Spock was a super-stoic character that thrived on cold rational (or, as he puts it, “logical”) thought.  In the new movie, Zachary Quinto plays Spock more like Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry character:  a man with a constant seething sneer and absolute sureness in himself.  Indeed, no fewer than five of the characters in the movie are uber-reasoners:  Spock, who can instantly calculate the probability of success of any particular sequence of actions; Chekov, a late pubescent math-whiz who; Scotty, who can out-invent Edison; Uhura, who knows every language in the universe; and Bones, the physician who can both induce and cure all illnesses.  Naturally, the least competent of the bunch, Chris Pine’s Kirk (a over-the-top pastiche of Tom Cruise’s Top Gun character) is ultimately put in charge.

(In the original series, the name “Uhura” was reportedly based on a Swahili word, but in this film, blacks are apparently so strange that Kirk assumes she must be of non-Earthly origin.)

In the television series, none of the characters ever changes – each week they start out the same.  In the movies, the one time this rule was broken was in Ricardo Montalban’s Wrath of Khan movie – a movie in which Spock dies (regrettably, even something seemingly as permanent as Spock’s death is reversed for subsequent issues from the franchise; not unlike Sherlock Holmes’ miraculous resurrection after his death at Reichenbach Falls.)   In this film too, there is no change except the one transition that happens in each Star Trek episode – Spock learns to appreciate Kirk’s virtues.  The great strength of the Star Trek movies – the outrageous performances and speeches by the villains – is unfortunately subdued here by Eric Bana’s California-style “Nero” who greets his adversaries as if he were meeting them in a twelve-step meeting.

But to judge the film on aesthetic terms is a bit misleading.  I saw the film in IMAX (something of a waste of money, as I subsequently learned that the flick was only photographed on standard Kodak 35mm film) and the special effects were suitably wowing, and the acting was different, but just as hammy, as I remember from the original series.  I didn’t expect to be challenged and I was not – and I cannot even say that the plot was compelling, but I found it a fun diversion for a few hours.

The Amazon (girlfriend) HD experience

Spoiler alert – this post contains some general remarks about a forthcoming movie, The Girlfriend Experience.  If you might see this movie, please return to this post after you’ve seen it.

 

 

 

 

Last night, I experienced multiple layers of simulacara – I downloaded a movie from Amazon that has not yet been released; a movie that is all about artificial experiences. 

The movie, Steven Soderbergh’s, The Girlfriend Experience, has attracted note for giving a star role to Sasha Grey, an apparently well-known pornographic actress.  (I had not seen Sasha Grey before this movie, although I had heard of her.)  In the movie, she plays an escort who temporarily pretends to be a girlfriend – showing “true” affection, attention, and emotional involvement with her clients; only then to leave them in the morning.  There was no sex in the film (although there are some brief nude scenes, and this is not a film appropriate for children.)  I won’t go further in my description except to say that the irony builds in the film, which sharply questions the foundations of interpersonal relationships.

This film has attracted a great deal of buzz, and Soderbergh, who has experimented with different models of film distribution in the past, is apparently eager to capture the buzz by offering the film before its theatrical release as an Amazon download in two versions:  standard and HD.  I downloaded the HD version, which was not very HD – it was a mere 3.008GB (about the size as a single-sided, single-layer DVD).  I started downloading the movie yesterday morning; I’m not sure how long it took but it was ready by the time I returned.

Now, to me, this very medium – a pre-theatrical Amazon download – is an ironic comment on the subject of the movie itself; here is a “release-level” download, replacing the experience of seeing a premiere movie in a cinema house; the film itself discussing the difference between real experiences and those designed to imitate them.