...
Show More
My Rabbi lent me the book, after a member of my Torah Study (don't worry I'm not that religious) group inspired me to read it. I'll admit due to my lack of training it was a slog to read, but worth the effort. And that is despite the fact that the book contains one serious omission. This omission is the silence as to the civil society that G-d created, and that we exercise literally every day. This society, probably the greatest that has ever been created, has been partially incorporated in Christianity and is the foundation of what has become the U.S., Canada, Australia and other "new world" societies.
Unlike Miles, I do not trace G-d progress from a roaring, false start to a fading conclusion. I agree that the Hebrews constantly back-slid into paganism. Our Cantor (basically a singing spiritual leader, but in this case beyond brilliant) posits, I think accurately, that in the Hebrews' early years there was "monolatry" or G-d being the first among other peer divine figures. As a history buff myself I trace the Hebrews' halting progress not to G-d's initial enthusiasm followed by loss of interest, as the successful creation of a society that decried "placing stumbling blocks before the blind", that mandated fair weights and measures, that directed leaving the corners of fields uncut and, most importantly for my profession, the periodic forgiveness of debts.
As a lawyer in that field I believe that the forgiveness was necessarily situational, based upon need and not occuring on a blanket basis. I see the seven years as a ceiling on how often a person or family could utilize the "debt holiday." That timeline was enshrined into bankruptcy legislation starting either in 1898 or 1938, and included in the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act. It was heartlessly extended to eight years by a cruel Congress, but the "seven" year figure was of Biblical origin.
On a positive note I learned a lot about the later books in the Tanakh (sp) that I didn't know. I found it necessary to read intermittently, indeed alternately with a book I am reading about John Adams' representation of British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, John Adams Under Fire: The Founding Father's Fight for Justice in the Boston Massacre, by Dan Abrams and David Fisher.
So I give it a "four" because of its uniqueness and novelty, despite my serious disagreement with parts of the book.
Unlike Miles, I do not trace G-d progress from a roaring, false start to a fading conclusion. I agree that the Hebrews constantly back-slid into paganism. Our Cantor (basically a singing spiritual leader, but in this case beyond brilliant) posits, I think accurately, that in the Hebrews' early years there was "monolatry" or G-d being the first among other peer divine figures. As a history buff myself I trace the Hebrews' halting progress not to G-d's initial enthusiasm followed by loss of interest, as the successful creation of a society that decried "placing stumbling blocks before the blind", that mandated fair weights and measures, that directed leaving the corners of fields uncut and, most importantly for my profession, the periodic forgiveness of debts.
As a lawyer in that field I believe that the forgiveness was necessarily situational, based upon need and not occuring on a blanket basis. I see the seven years as a ceiling on how often a person or family could utilize the "debt holiday." That timeline was enshrined into bankruptcy legislation starting either in 1898 or 1938, and included in the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act. It was heartlessly extended to eight years by a cruel Congress, but the "seven" year figure was of Biblical origin.
On a positive note I learned a lot about the later books in the Tanakh (sp) that I didn't know. I found it necessary to read intermittently, indeed alternately with a book I am reading about John Adams' representation of British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, John Adams Under Fire: The Founding Father's Fight for Justice in the Boston Massacre, by Dan Abrams and David Fisher.
So I give it a "four" because of its uniqueness and novelty, despite my serious disagreement with parts of the book.
