If the Talmud were written today, would it look like Facebook?First, the rabbis of the Mishnaic period post a Jewish legal rule. Then, Talmudic sages weigh in with their comments, all pithy and lacking punctuation. Almost immediately, the comments grow far longer than the original post. Eventually, outside links to the Shulchan Aruch and Maimonides’ compendium of Jewish law appear on the right side.It may sound too cute by half, but if you look closely, the Talmud and Facebook actually share similar layout.

And then goes on to ask the question in the title.

For a few in the Jewish community, Facebook’s IPO raises the $64,000 question — or in this case, the $64 billion question — of how much of that newly created wealth will go to Jewish causes. The jury’s still out on whether Facebook’s Jewish creator, Mark Zuckerberg, will turn into a major Jewish giver following the IPO, when the just-turned 28-year-old figures to become one of the richest people in the world.

There is something (not a lot really) in the first observation. Years ago by colleague Greg Spinner pointed out that midrash (and all rabbinic works containing it) is very much like the web. The “speaker” will drop a single word or short phrase into his exposition and like a hyperlink in a webpage it takes the audience immediately to the referenced text. Of course the audience had to know that “when you lie down and when you rise” is a reference to Deut. 6:7 and all that it entails. Facebook does provide a place for community engagement, but I think Biblioblogs are more akin to the rabbinic traditions.

His second point, and to be fair to Heilman he quickly dismisses it and moves on, is not surprising to those of us who regularly work in development (fund raising). When we see a college football player sign a major contract in the NFL I promise you there is someone from his alma mater making sure he is aware of how proud his school is him and that they would be happy to help him reduce his taxes through charitable donations.

But as I said, Heilman recognizes that this is not really the point of impact for the Jewish world and in fact, his opening comments notwithstanding, I think does get at what Facebook is doing for communities, religious and otherwise.

But the real story of Facebook’s impact on the Jewish world ultimately is likely to be more about the ways it is prompting Jews to change the way they think, behave, organize, and even mourn and celebrate than it will be about Zuckerberg’s tzedakah.

I do not think (and apparently GM agrees with me) that Facebook is going to be worth the financial evaluation it will receive tomorrow. That being said, it is proving to be a valuable tool of finding new communities and restoring old ones. The diaspora needn’t be so dispersed any more.

via Facebook IPO: Good for the Jews? | JTA – Jewish & Israel News.

 

The scissors cut the long-grown hair

the razor scrapes the remnant fuzz.

Small-jawed, weak-chinned, bug-eyed,

I stare at the forgotten boy I was.

 

This was a leading entry in PepsiCo’s Super Bowl commercial contest. When word leaked out about it, the Catholic Church went bananas.

Pepsi has been trying to squash every occurrence of it on the Web; so, I don’t know how long this will be up.

I cannot confirm that this is the case, that the Catholic Church was upset or that Pepsi is trying to remove the ads, but I wonder if you all think this is funny or sacrilegious? Or perhaps neither.

 

Today I came across this excellent video from Alaska Robotics. I am afraid my facial exploits are quite tame and limited in comparison.

 

But the movie has nothing to do with the Book of Kells. The Book of Kells was made by monks who were faithful followers of Jesus who produced this gorgeous manuscript out of love and devotion, yet this movie seems oblivious to that fact. At no point in the movie is reference ever made to what the book is actually about and aside from a handful of crosses and references to monastic titles, someone without prior knowledge of this amazing artifact would have no clue about its true nature. That is disappointing. Although I have seen the Book myself I know little of its true history and a little more of that and perhaps less of the fairy or even the Northmen would have been nice.

Still, I highly recommend the movie. B+

 

As smoking a pipe is to cigarettes.

One is a pleasant diversion, the other a horrible addiction.

 

Andy Capp by Reg Smythe

It is tough to admit it but I am no longer the “younger generation.” Sure I use twitter, facebook, and often have the gadgets. Folks are saying that twitter and facebook are really for the old folks anyway so maybe that isn’t a sign of my hipness. But when it comes to education and preaching I think that we are very often in danger of altering the message rather than the means of delivery. When Paul said he became all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22) he was not saying that he would alter the Gospel to meet a different audience’s perspective (if they didn’t like the idea of Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice, for example, he did not say that it was merely an example of love). Rather he was saying that he would meet people where they were in the condition that they were in. The Bible must be translated into every languages and only some of them are verbal.

This is true for education as well. I certainly believe that we need to understand the nature and character of our students today and we should explore modes of delivery that will work best for our/their current context (which is not the same for everyone, we have commuters, adult learners, military, etc.). But our goals and the content should not necessarily change. The obvious exception to the content is, of course, where new knowledge is being developed; we need to stay up-to-date in our fields and incorporate new discoveries and theories into our courses. As much as I am glad to see folks using the iPad, for example, in English classes, I worry sometimes that in some people’s rush to incorporate the latest gadget they are not only potentially leaving some behind they are also running the risk of making the course about the tools rather than the subject.

In short, whatever modes and methods we use we need to keep our eyes on the “course objectives and learning outcomes,” even in the church.

 

(And it is not just the glove, did we need to see a Jesus with that much chest hair?)

 

• First I put in the opening paragraphs from my paper on Boaz from MAR-SBL. The result? I write like Kurt Vonnegut.
• Next I pasted in a portion from a sermon for 6 Easter  2009. The result? I write like James Joyce.
• Finally, I used a portion from this blog, specifically where I was discussing the iPad. The result? I write like David Foster Wallace.

This puts me in mind of the essay by C. S. Lewis (was it Fern-Seed and Elephants and Other Essays on Christianity? I can’t remember) where he discusses the debates about Pauline authorship. As I recall he points out that the arguments from writing style do not hold up since if one were to analyze his various works, Narnia, academic essays, apologetics, etc., one would think there were at least 4 different authors at work. Without getting into the debate about Pauline authorship or J, for that matter, I think this serves as a reasonable caution. Who among us does always write in the same style? And none of my examples include any dialogue with characters expressing distinct voices or views.

All in all, these are not bad folks to be in company with (although I haven’t read any Wallace). The site never claimed to be accurate, Margaret Atwood apparently doesn’t write like herself, but it is a bit fun and perhaps I nice reminder that our own literary critical abilities are probably not much better.