Nina W. Brown has written a new book entitled Coping with Infuriating, Mean, Critical People: The Destructive Narcissistic Pattern. In it she describes a pattern of behavior which I believe is rampant in Jews for Jesus corporate culture (especially among the leaders of JFJ). I quote from page 3 of the book:
"Constantly makes comments to or about you that are devaluing or demeaning."
"Interactions with this person generally leave you angry, upset, hurt, or resentful."
"You, and others, seemingly have to give their desires, wishes, and needs a lot of attention, care, and priority."
"The relationship began on a high note, you were charmed, but now you cannot do anything to please him or her no matter how hard you try."
"The person cannot be trusted to give accurate information, and frequently lies, distorts, and misleads."
"Demands understanding from you, but gives none in return."
"Uses or takes your possessions without permission and/or fails to return them."
Brown calls these behaviors a "Destructive Narcissistic Pattern (DNP)." Does this pattern sound to familiar to anyone who has worked in JFJ? I'll write more about this in the coming days.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The Destructive Narcissistic Pattern
Nina W. Brown has written a new book entitled Coping with Infuriating, Mean, Critical People: The Destructive Narcissistic Pattern. In it she describes a pattern of behavior which I believe is rampant in Jews for Jesus corporate culture (especially among the leaders of JFJ). I quote from page 3 of the book:
"Constantly makes comments to or about you that are devaluing or demeaning."
"Interactions with this person generally leave you angry, upset, hurt, or resentful."
"You, and others, seemingly have to give their desires, wishes, and needs a lot of attention, care, and priority."
"The relationship began on a high note, you were charmed, but now you cannot do anything to please him or her no matter how hard you try."
"The person cannot be trusted to give accurate information, and frequently lies, distorts, and misleads."
"Demands understanding from you, but gives none in return."
"Uses or takes your possessions without permission and/or fails to return them."
Brown calls these behaviors a "Destructive Narcissistic Pattern (DNP)." Does this pattern sound to familiar to anyone who has worked in JFJ? I'll write more about this in the coming days.
"Constantly makes comments to or about you that are devaluing or demeaning."
"Interactions with this person generally leave you angry, upset, hurt, or resentful."
"You, and others, seemingly have to give their desires, wishes, and needs a lot of attention, care, and priority."
"The relationship began on a high note, you were charmed, but now you cannot do anything to please him or her no matter how hard you try."
"The person cannot be trusted to give accurate information, and frequently lies, distorts, and misleads."
"Demands understanding from you, but gives none in return."
"Uses or takes your possessions without permission and/or fails to return them."
Brown calls these behaviors a "Destructive Narcissistic Pattern (DNP)." Does this pattern sound to familiar to anyone who has worked in JFJ? I'll write more about this in the coming days.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Jews for Jesus apologizes to Jackie Mason
The New York Times reported on Dec. 5th that Jews for Jesus has apologized to Jackie Mason to settle Mason's lawsuit against the group based on a broadside that JFJ had been distributing that bore the words: "Jackie Mason: a Jew for Jesus?" The article states that Mason settled "for a three-paragraph letter from David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus, offering ''sincere apologies for any distress'' the pamphlet had caused."
The NYT went on to report that after the settlement was reached in the federal judge's chambers, verbal jousting took place between Mason and Brickner in the courthouse hallway.
Along with the apology, Jews for Jesus has agreed to "retire" the pamphlet, perhaps the first time in its short history that JFJ has voluntarily censored itself.
The NYT went on to report that after the settlement was reached in the federal judge's chambers, verbal jousting took place between Mason and Brickner in the courthouse hallway.
Along with the apology, Jews for Jesus has agreed to "retire" the pamphlet, perhaps the first time in its short history that JFJ has voluntarily censored itself.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Friday, August 25, 2006
Quick Retribution
It appears that after the legal action Jews for Jesus took against the Google over the Jews for Jesus Blogspot site, Jackie Mason has taken them to court for using his likeness on their gospel tracts.
Seems like Jackie doesn't like his likeness and mannerisms (his trademark if you will) being used.
With the rise of the blogs, they'll get more attention for this "controversy" than from their many previous attention maneuvers. Unfortunately, it wont be the good kind.
Seems like Jackie doesn't like his likeness and mannerisms (his trademark if you will) being used.
With the rise of the blogs, they'll get more attention for this "controversy" than from their many previous attention maneuvers. Unfortunately, it wont be the good kind.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
What happened to Whisteblower?
Jewsforjesus.blogspot.com is now a JFJ site. What happened to Whistleblower?
Sunday, August 06, 2006
So Many Blogs
This one was a pretty good blog once:
http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
Now it is very boring. What happened to Whisteblower? Did JFJ win the Google Lawsuit?
Also these seem to be new JFJ Blogs or related blogs:
http://goyforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://shutuphead.blogspot.com/
These are Ex Jews for Jesus Blogs. They are kind of boring too since they've been inactive for quite some time.
http://exjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://forjewsforjesus2.blogspot.com/
http://churchjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://paralleluniversejfj.blogspot.com/
http://goodjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://victimsjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://secretjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://whathappenedjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
The views expressed are not necessarily those of Ex Jews for Jesus, and the authors take full responsibility for the content.
http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
Now it is very boring. What happened to Whisteblower? Did JFJ win the Google Lawsuit?
Also these seem to be new JFJ Blogs or related blogs:
http://goyforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://shutuphead.blogspot.com/
These are Ex Jews for Jesus Blogs. They are kind of boring too since they've been inactive for quite some time.
http://exjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://forjewsforjesus2.blogspot.com/
http://churchjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://paralleluniversejfj.blogspot.com/
http://goodjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://victimsjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://secretjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
http://whathappenedjewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
The views expressed are not necessarily those of Ex Jews for Jesus, and the authors take full responsibility for the content.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
an article about David Brickner
2006-03-31 -- The Los Angeles Jewish Journal
A Tenuous Claim as a Jew for Jesus
by David Klinghoffer
Here is an interesting tidbit: The world's top "Jew for Jesus" is, by
ancestry, a non-Jew. Fancy that.
You know Jews for Jesus, the lovable San Francisco-based organization that
uses the appeal of Jewish kinship to introduce Jews to "Y'shua ha Mashiach"
(Jesus Christ). Its executive director is a pleasant fellow named David
Brickner. After he critiqued my book, "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus," in a
Jews for Jesus publication and later graciously retracted a prominent
factual error he made, we started e-mailing.
Brickner's bio on the Jews for Jesus Web site emphasizes his distinguished
Jewish lineage, calling him "a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus."
That got my attention, since belief in Jesus is among the most powerful
known acids on the existence of the Jewish people. When Jews accept Jesus,
they marry other Christians or their children do, thus disappearing into
the Christian population.
Did David Brickner's family beat the odds? Actually, no.
According to Jewish law, a Jew is defined as someone who either a) has a
Jewish mother or b) was converted by a rabbinic court. I asked Brickner
about his mother. He replied a few days later with candor:
"She is not halachically Jewish," he wrote, using the term for the body of
Jewish law. "Her father was Jewish, but her mother was not. Both of my
father's parents were Jewish. My parents made aliyah many years ago, and my
mother was accepted as a Jew under the Law of Return. That may not make a
difference to you, but it does to me."
But look, I pointed out, most American Jews maintain that only a Jewish
mother counts in making a Jewish baby. While the Reform movement agrees
with Jews for Jesus in affirming patrilineal descent, Conservative and
Orthodox Jews make up 54 percent of America's affiliated Jewish community
(33 and 21 percent respectively). I wrote to Brickner:
"So when you tell Jews, 'Hey, I'm a Jew just like you, and I believe in
Y'shua!' you are using the word 'Jew,' with its implications of kinship, to
mean something which you know very well that most of your listeners do not
understand it to mean. That's deception."
Brickner replied:
"I think it a bit ironic that the insult comes from you in light of your
own yichus [ancestry]. Maybe there is some pathology behind your rigid
declaration."
He was referring to the fact that my own birth parents are non-Jews, as I
wrote in my 1998 memoir about adoption and conversion, "The Lord Will
Gather Me In."
In exposing Brickner, am I guilty of pathological rigidity? I don't think
so, for three reasons.
First, truth in advertising: If Brickner were the head of Jews for Saving
the Whales, it wouldn't matter if he is unambiguously a Jew or not. But
because his group's whole pitch is based on the claim that lots of actual
Jews believe in the Christian messiah, Brickner's identity matters.
Second, his story beautifully illustrates the sociological pattern I
mentioned earlier. Brickner points out that he has acknowledged, briefly,
his non-Jewish background in a long sentimental article about his family's
Jewish roots. It's tucked away on the Jews for Jesus Web site, if you know
where to look.
We learn in the article, "It all began about 100 years ago in the Kamenky
Jewish quarter of Zhitomir, Russia. My great-grandmother, Esther, daughter
of Reb Levi Yitzkak Glaser, married Julius Finestone, a Jew who believed in
Jesus."
How the little Jewish girl, presumably with rabbinic approval, married a
professed Christian is left unclear.
Anyway, Esther's son Fred married a non-Jew, Ruth. Ruth's daughter was
David Brickner's mother. Thus at least in this one branch, the Glaser
family has disappeared from the eternal nation. When I asked Brickner about
his own wife, the former Patti Vasaturo, with whom he has two kids, he
joked that Mrs. Brickner is a "Moabite." He was alluding to the non-Jewish
ancestry of the biblical Ruth, who was a Moabite by birth.
So it goes.
Today, interestingly, there are "Messianic Jewish" communities that
encourage "Jewish living." Very nice. When I spoke at the Atlanta Jewish
Community Center recently, a young guy came up afterward, introduced
himself as a Messianic Jew, and told me he'd grown up as I did, in a Reform
temple.
"Believing in Y'shua," he said, "I feel more Jewish than ever."
I looked at the wedding ring on his finger and asked if his wife is Jewish.
Take one guess what he replied. For all his "feeling Jewish," I sadly
explained, he had consigned to oblivion any hope that he will have Jewish
progeny.
Finally, reflecting on Brickner's case allows us to ask why Jews for
thousands of years have cared about matrilineal descent to begin with.
Isn't all this terribly dusty, hidebound, and rabbinic?
In the current issue of the journal Azure, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik explains
the spiritual significance of the legal principle. Far from being "merely"
rabbinic, matrilineal descent is assumed by the Bible itself. In the book
of Ezra (10:2-5), it's given as being "according to the Torah" to treat
children born of non-Jewish women as outsiders to the community.
But why should the Bible care? Because Jews aspire to have a relationship
with God like the one modeled for us in the intimacy of the relationship
with our mother.
Writes Soloveichik, "It is because of God's maternal relationship with
Israel, Isaiah explains, that the Jewish people will never be abandoned:
'Can a woman forget her child, refrain from having mercy on the son of her
womb?'"
It is hardly surprising, then, that a Jew for Jesus should find himself
unable to accept the Jewish mother as the criterion of Jewish identity. For
our argument with Christianity turns upon the same two focal points that
give meaning to matrilineal descent in the first place: namely, the Torah
and its Author.
Christianity has, for centuries, meant giving up what is unique about the
Jewish relationship with God, the relationship He framed at Mount Sinai in
the eternal grammar of the Torah's 613 commandments. The Torah over and
over again affirms its own eternity as a practical obligation not to be
altered in any way (Deuteronomy 13:1, 29:28, 30:11-14, etc.), a faith
voided by the apostle Paul, who called Torah a "curse" from which we are
"discharged" (Roman 7:6).
In return for giving up Torah, what does a Jew for Jesus get? A Jewish
Christian will say: A relationship with God. Eternal reward. The truth.
But we already had those things. Some bargain.
Hey, I don't mean to be too hard on Brickner. I like the guy.
I even feel warmly toward Jews for Jesus. In 1983, I was a high school
senior taking classes at UCLA. Strolling on Bruin Walk one day I
encountered a Jews for Jesus missionary named Sid who stumped me with
Isaiah 53, a favorite Christian proof text. A typically ignorant product of
a typical bar mitzvah education, I was stunned and scared to realize how
little I understood about Judaism. The experience set me on a path to
living as an Orthodox Jew.
I am convinced that, like Sid, Brickner wants to help. Nor did he set out
to deceive Jews by claiming to be Jewish. It's just that he isn't, in fact,
a Jew for Jesus. Too bad for him that a more accurate name for his
organization, "Gentiles for Jesus," doesn't have the same ring to it.
David Klinghoffer's book, "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point
in Western History" (Doubleday), was issued this month in paperback. He is
a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. His Web site is
www.davidklinghoffer.com.
A Tenuous Claim as a Jew for Jesus
by David Klinghoffer
Here is an interesting tidbit: The world's top "Jew for Jesus" is, by
ancestry, a non-Jew. Fancy that.
You know Jews for Jesus, the lovable San Francisco-based organization that
uses the appeal of Jewish kinship to introduce Jews to "Y'shua ha Mashiach"
(Jesus Christ). Its executive director is a pleasant fellow named David
Brickner. After he critiqued my book, "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus," in a
Jews for Jesus publication and later graciously retracted a prominent
factual error he made, we started e-mailing.
Brickner's bio on the Jews for Jesus Web site emphasizes his distinguished
Jewish lineage, calling him "a fifth-generation Jewish believer in Jesus."
That got my attention, since belief in Jesus is among the most powerful
known acids on the existence of the Jewish people. When Jews accept Jesus,
they marry other Christians or their children do, thus disappearing into
the Christian population.
Did David Brickner's family beat the odds? Actually, no.
According to Jewish law, a Jew is defined as someone who either a) has a
Jewish mother or b) was converted by a rabbinic court. I asked Brickner
about his mother. He replied a few days later with candor:
"She is not halachically Jewish," he wrote, using the term for the body of
Jewish law. "Her father was Jewish, but her mother was not. Both of my
father's parents were Jewish. My parents made aliyah many years ago, and my
mother was accepted as a Jew under the Law of Return. That may not make a
difference to you, but it does to me."
But look, I pointed out, most American Jews maintain that only a Jewish
mother counts in making a Jewish baby. While the Reform movement agrees
with Jews for Jesus in affirming patrilineal descent, Conservative and
Orthodox Jews make up 54 percent of America's affiliated Jewish community
(33 and 21 percent respectively). I wrote to Brickner:
"So when you tell Jews, 'Hey, I'm a Jew just like you, and I believe in
Y'shua!' you are using the word 'Jew,' with its implications of kinship, to
mean something which you know very well that most of your listeners do not
understand it to mean. That's deception."
Brickner replied:
"I think it a bit ironic that the insult comes from you in light of your
own yichus [ancestry]. Maybe there is some pathology behind your rigid
declaration."
He was referring to the fact that my own birth parents are non-Jews, as I
wrote in my 1998 memoir about adoption and conversion, "The Lord Will
Gather Me In."
In exposing Brickner, am I guilty of pathological rigidity? I don't think
so, for three reasons.
First, truth in advertising: If Brickner were the head of Jews for Saving
the Whales, it wouldn't matter if he is unambiguously a Jew or not. But
because his group's whole pitch is based on the claim that lots of actual
Jews believe in the Christian messiah, Brickner's identity matters.
Second, his story beautifully illustrates the sociological pattern I
mentioned earlier. Brickner points out that he has acknowledged, briefly,
his non-Jewish background in a long sentimental article about his family's
Jewish roots. It's tucked away on the Jews for Jesus Web site, if you know
where to look.
We learn in the article, "It all began about 100 years ago in the Kamenky
Jewish quarter of Zhitomir, Russia. My great-grandmother, Esther, daughter
of Reb Levi Yitzkak Glaser, married Julius Finestone, a Jew who believed in
Jesus."
How the little Jewish girl, presumably with rabbinic approval, married a
professed Christian is left unclear.
Anyway, Esther's son Fred married a non-Jew, Ruth. Ruth's daughter was
David Brickner's mother. Thus at least in this one branch, the Glaser
family has disappeared from the eternal nation. When I asked Brickner about
his own wife, the former Patti Vasaturo, with whom he has two kids, he
joked that Mrs. Brickner is a "Moabite." He was alluding to the non-Jewish
ancestry of the biblical Ruth, who was a Moabite by birth.
So it goes.
Today, interestingly, there are "Messianic Jewish" communities that
encourage "Jewish living." Very nice. When I spoke at the Atlanta Jewish
Community Center recently, a young guy came up afterward, introduced
himself as a Messianic Jew, and told me he'd grown up as I did, in a Reform
temple.
"Believing in Y'shua," he said, "I feel more Jewish than ever."
I looked at the wedding ring on his finger and asked if his wife is Jewish.
Take one guess what he replied. For all his "feeling Jewish," I sadly
explained, he had consigned to oblivion any hope that he will have Jewish
progeny.
Finally, reflecting on Brickner's case allows us to ask why Jews for
thousands of years have cared about matrilineal descent to begin with.
Isn't all this terribly dusty, hidebound, and rabbinic?
In the current issue of the journal Azure, Rabbi Meir Soloveichik explains
the spiritual significance of the legal principle. Far from being "merely"
rabbinic, matrilineal descent is assumed by the Bible itself. In the book
of Ezra (10:2-5), it's given as being "according to the Torah" to treat
children born of non-Jewish women as outsiders to the community.
But why should the Bible care? Because Jews aspire to have a relationship
with God like the one modeled for us in the intimacy of the relationship
with our mother.
Writes Soloveichik, "It is because of God's maternal relationship with
Israel, Isaiah explains, that the Jewish people will never be abandoned:
'Can a woman forget her child, refrain from having mercy on the son of her
womb?'"
It is hardly surprising, then, that a Jew for Jesus should find himself
unable to accept the Jewish mother as the criterion of Jewish identity. For
our argument with Christianity turns upon the same two focal points that
give meaning to matrilineal descent in the first place: namely, the Torah
and its Author.
Christianity has, for centuries, meant giving up what is unique about the
Jewish relationship with God, the relationship He framed at Mount Sinai in
the eternal grammar of the Torah's 613 commandments. The Torah over and
over again affirms its own eternity as a practical obligation not to be
altered in any way (Deuteronomy 13:1, 29:28, 30:11-14, etc.), a faith
voided by the apostle Paul, who called Torah a "curse" from which we are
"discharged" (Roman 7:6).
In return for giving up Torah, what does a Jew for Jesus get? A Jewish
Christian will say: A relationship with God. Eternal reward. The truth.
But we already had those things. Some bargain.
Hey, I don't mean to be too hard on Brickner. I like the guy.
I even feel warmly toward Jews for Jesus. In 1983, I was a high school
senior taking classes at UCLA. Strolling on Bruin Walk one day I
encountered a Jews for Jesus missionary named Sid who stumped me with
Isaiah 53, a favorite Christian proof text. A typically ignorant product of
a typical bar mitzvah education, I was stunned and scared to realize how
little I understood about Judaism. The experience set me on a path to
living as an Orthodox Jew.
I am convinced that, like Sid, Brickner wants to help. Nor did he set out
to deceive Jews by claiming to be Jewish. It's just that he isn't, in fact,
a Jew for Jesus. Too bad for him that a more accurate name for his
organization, "Gentiles for Jesus," doesn't have the same ring to it.
David Klinghoffer's book, "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point
in Western History" (Doubleday), was issued this month in paperback. He is
a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. His Web site is
www.davidklinghoffer.com.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
More Jews For Jesus Goodwill
JFJ gets more good press from a blog called The Hatemonger's Quarterly. Strangely, it is in the context of government spying:
... we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” can monitor the search words e-travelers use to head to our “website.”
We know, we know: You are upset that we have such invasive power over you. But don’t worry: We’ve already sold all of your information to the lovable folks at Jews for Jesus, and they should be over your house any minute with some informational brochures.
Heh.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Is Jews For Jesus Persecuted? The Google Lawsuit
If you've been following the Jews for Jesus lawsuit against Google, you may find this development interesting.
Over at jewsforjesus.blogspot.com, an unrelated but similar site, "Whistle Blower" discusses Jews For Jesus' justification for their lawsuit. "Whistle Blower" points us to an article on JfJ's RealTime site. This quote struck me particularly hard.
"We view this as a spiritual attack coming at a sensitive time in our ministry.
We are headed into our largest evangelistic campaign ever this summer. I guess
it's "par for the course" that we find some of our energy and resources being
tapped. I am sure that Satan as well as our earthly opponents would like to
discourage us just as they would like to see our trademark misused by others to
spread negativity, lies and confusion under our name—a name that exists to make
the name of Jesus known"
You see, this "hostilty" is not a consequence of JFJ's destructive culture. No, it's spiritual warfare. It is a convenient way to pass off taking personal responsibility for misdeeds and paint themselves as the victim.
Many former staff of Jews for Jesus can attest to the ministry's abusive nature.
If you are reading this and are Christian, please ask yourself why this particular ministry has so many "enemies" from within its own ranks?
Christians are persecuted in this world. It was stated plainly by Jesus Himself. But note this difference; Dr. Dobson is vilified primarly from non-believers who disagree strongly with his message. Jews For Jesus, on the other hand, is receiving their negativity from former staff, many of whom are still Christian.
Why?
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Is JFJ honest?
Recently Moishe Rosen stated on a public forum the following:
"Jews for Jesus has opposition who are unprincipled and are willing to adopt guises so that they appear to be other than what they are."
I'm not sure what Rev. Rosen is talking about, but it's interesting that JFJ would complain about dishonest tactics given the history of Jews for Jesus. JFJ is proud that they always are (supposedly) upfront and honest about who they are, but JFJ used to commonly practice something that proves this is not the case (I'm not sure if they still practice it). When JFJ musicians or street theatre groups would perform in public, they would commonly use "ringers" to attract attention from passers-by and thus generate a crowd of onlookers. This was especially prevalent during New York City summer "campaigns." These ringers would pretend to be regular spectators but in reality they were usually JFJ volunteers who were asked or told to watch the proceedings in a neutral role, without any identifying clothing such as a Jews for Jesus shirt or jacket.
I'm sure there are other more glaring examples of JFJ's dishonesty, but I never got close enough to the inner circle to discover these.
"Jews for Jesus has opposition who are unprincipled and are willing to adopt guises so that they appear to be other than what they are."
I'm not sure what Rev. Rosen is talking about, but it's interesting that JFJ would complain about dishonest tactics given the history of Jews for Jesus. JFJ is proud that they always are (supposedly) upfront and honest about who they are, but JFJ used to commonly practice something that proves this is not the case (I'm not sure if they still practice it). When JFJ musicians or street theatre groups would perform in public, they would commonly use "ringers" to attract attention from passers-by and thus generate a crowd of onlookers. This was especially prevalent during New York City summer "campaigns." These ringers would pretend to be regular spectators but in reality they were usually JFJ volunteers who were asked or told to watch the proceedings in a neutral role, without any identifying clothing such as a Jews for Jesus shirt or jacket.
I'm sure there are other more glaring examples of JFJ's dishonesty, but I never got close enough to the inner circle to discover these.
Make sure to check out http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
Be sure to check out http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com/
What's being written there at this time is really interesting and new!
What's being written there at this time is really interesting and new!
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Yeshua or Y'shua?
Jews for Jesus is unique in its spelling of the Hebrew word for Jesus. They spell it "Y'shua" instead of "Yeshua."
I first encountered the unique spelling of the word "Y'shua" in the book title "Y'shua: The Jewish Way to Say Jesus," written by Moishe Rosen. I will not comment on the CHUTZPA of such a title. I see three key affronts in this spelling.
First, an affront to the Hebrew Language. The name Yeshua, which appears in the Biblical text in the 2nd temple period (The high priest Yeshua ben Yehozadak, mentioned in Ezra 3:2, 10, 18 e.g., appears as Yehoshua in Haggai and Zechariah; similarly, Yehoshua [Joshua] ben Nun is called Yeshua in Neh. 8:17). The standard transliteration of the name in English translations (including the JPS) is Jeshua (retaining the German J, pronounced Y, as in Jerusalem [Yerushalayim]). Since JPS can arguably be considered more of a standard of Jewish usage than JFJ, we would be more fair in saying that "Jeshua" is 'the Jewish way to say Jesus.' Obviously, the substitution of Y for J would better convey the original pronunciation for today's English readers.
Second, it is an affront to accepted standards of Hebrew transliteration. The Yod in Yeshua is vocalized with a Tsere, a vowel which is usually long, sometimes short, but never "ultra-short" as an apostrophe in transliteration might imply. Even the ultra-short sheva, which vocalizes the Yod in "Jerusalem" and "Jericho," is typically rendered by an ultra-short e (as in the English word "believe," unless you come from the deep south).
Third, it is an affront to the English language which requires a vowel following Y if the Y is to be pronounced as a consonant. Without a vowel, the Y itself takes on a vowel function, typically pronounced as a long E, as in "Yves St. Laurent" and "yquem" (pronounced "ee-quem") a "fine, rich sweet white wine", or as a short i, as in "Yggdrasil" (pronounced "ig-drasil"), "the ash tree which, in Scandinavian mythology, binds earth, heaven, and hell." Hence, Y'shua should be pronounced as "EE-Shua," as in "Como estan Paco y Shua?"
Drash: A brief linguistic evaluation indicates that, in fact, the spelling of the name Y'shua actually throws new and important light on Jesus' true identity. Of course we know that in Hebrew the Yod and Vav are often interchangeable depending on their position in the word. When the root Yalad ("give birth") is cast in the passive (niphal) form, the yod is replaced by a vav, vocalized as a vowel (long o), "nolad." Similarly, the Y' in Y'shua, since it must be pronounced as a vowel, may actually represent a long o sound and hence should be written O'.
Turning to the second element of the name, we note that in the Greek transliteration of the Messiah's personal name in the New Testament, an upsilson represents the u of Y'shua. It is well known that the actual pronunciation of the upsilon, even in the second temple period, was a long e sound--hence the second part of the name would be written "shea" (similarly, note that another form of Joshua's name (Yehoshua) was Hoshea (Deut. 32:44)).
Putting the two elements of the name together, we see that the name should actually have been written "O'Shea"--indicating that Jesus was not in fact Norwegian but Irish!
:-)
I first encountered the unique spelling of the word "Y'shua" in the book title "Y'shua: The Jewish Way to Say Jesus," written by Moishe Rosen. I will not comment on the CHUTZPA of such a title. I see three key affronts in this spelling.
First, an affront to the Hebrew Language. The name Yeshua, which appears in the Biblical text in the 2nd temple period (The high priest Yeshua ben Yehozadak, mentioned in Ezra 3:2, 10, 18 e.g., appears as Yehoshua in Haggai and Zechariah; similarly, Yehoshua [Joshua] ben Nun is called Yeshua in Neh. 8:17). The standard transliteration of the name in English translations (including the JPS) is Jeshua (retaining the German J, pronounced Y, as in Jerusalem [Yerushalayim]). Since JPS can arguably be considered more of a standard of Jewish usage than JFJ, we would be more fair in saying that "Jeshua" is 'the Jewish way to say Jesus.' Obviously, the substitution of Y for J would better convey the original pronunciation for today's English readers.
Second, it is an affront to accepted standards of Hebrew transliteration. The Yod in Yeshua is vocalized with a Tsere, a vowel which is usually long, sometimes short, but never "ultra-short" as an apostrophe in transliteration might imply. Even the ultra-short sheva, which vocalizes the Yod in "Jerusalem" and "Jericho," is typically rendered by an ultra-short e (as in the English word "believe," unless you come from the deep south).
Third, it is an affront to the English language which requires a vowel following Y if the Y is to be pronounced as a consonant. Without a vowel, the Y itself takes on a vowel function, typically pronounced as a long E, as in "Yves St. Laurent" and "yquem" (pronounced "ee-quem") a "fine, rich sweet white wine", or as a short i, as in "Yggdrasil" (pronounced "ig-drasil"), "the ash tree which, in Scandinavian mythology, binds earth, heaven, and hell." Hence, Y'shua should be pronounced as "EE-Shua," as in "Como estan Paco y Shua?"
Drash: A brief linguistic evaluation indicates that, in fact, the spelling of the name Y'shua actually throws new and important light on Jesus' true identity. Of course we know that in Hebrew the Yod and Vav are often interchangeable depending on their position in the word. When the root Yalad ("give birth") is cast in the passive (niphal) form, the yod is replaced by a vav, vocalized as a vowel (long o), "nolad." Similarly, the Y' in Y'shua, since it must be pronounced as a vowel, may actually represent a long o sound and hence should be written O'.
Turning to the second element of the name, we note that in the Greek transliteration of the Messiah's personal name in the New Testament, an upsilson represents the u of Y'shua. It is well known that the actual pronunciation of the upsilon, even in the second temple period, was a long e sound--hence the second part of the name would be written "shea" (similarly, note that another form of Joshua's name (Yehoshua) was Hoshea (Deut. 32:44)).
Putting the two elements of the name together, we see that the name should actually have been written "O'Shea"--indicating that Jesus was not in fact Norwegian but Irish!
:-)
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Jews for Jesus sues Google over blog
SAN FRANCISCO - Christian evangelical group Jews for Jesus is suing Google Inc., saying a Web log hosted through the Internet search leader's Blogspot service infringes its trademark.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York on Wednesday, seeks to force Google to give Jews for Jesus control of the site as well as unspecified monetary damages.
"We have a right to our own name and Google has allowed the use of our name on Blogspot without our permission," said Susan Perlman, associate executive director with Jews for Jesus.
"Our reputation is at stake," Perlman told Reuters.
Google's Blogspot and Blogger services allow people to set up Web logs, or online journals known as "blogs" for short, for free. A Google spokesman was not immediately available for comment on the lawsuit.
The disputed blog, http://jewsforjesus.blogspot.com, was started in January 2005 by someone taking the name "Whistle Blower" and airing critical views of the San Francisco-based organization, which seeks to convert Jews to Christianity.
The site has only three entries, the last of which was made on May 9.
Comments on the blog showed that Jews for Jesus attempted to persuade Whistle Blower to transfer the domain to the group but was rebuffed.
Perlman said the critical tone was not behind the suit.
"One of the wonderful things about the Internet is that there is freedom of expression, but there should be a protection ... so that organizations like ours can represent ourselves," Perlman said.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Who is Ex-Jews for Jesus?
It seems that it cannot be conceived that former JFJ staff might spontaneously come together to speak out about past hurts experienced through Jews for Jesus as a consequence of JFJ's own actions.
The truth is Ex-Jews for Jesus are individuals who served with Jews for Jesus at different times and in different places. Many of us have never met one another face to face, but we all share do share a common bond and we do share common experiences. No one former staff person leads us, but the desire to share what happened to us while serving and after serving with Jews for Jesus does.
http://www.exjewsforjesus.org/
The truth is Ex-Jews for Jesus are individuals who served with Jews for Jesus at different times and in different places. Many of us have never met one another face to face, but we all share do share a common bond and we do share common experiences. No one former staff person leads us, but the desire to share what happened to us while serving and after serving with Jews for Jesus does.
http://www.exjewsforjesus.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)