The bacon on the grill for Ramadan and beyond

I ate the bacon

That was on the grill

 

And which

You were surely ignoring

And not only

Because of Ramadan.

Or Yom Kippur.

Or Good Friday.

 

It was delicious.

No forgiveness needed.

 

Riffing, of course, on William Carlos Williams' "This is Just to Say."

 

Note: I'm not a Gnu Atheist, but I do skewer at times. 

Also, I'm a semi-vegetarian, but here's how to get crisp oven-roasted bacon.

Some seeming linguistic dishonesty at Atlas Obscura

I think Pocket had shown me this piece before, but, in any case, I see major errors in Atlas Obscura's piece on Scots.

First, I would call it "Scots English" but Wikipedia in my Google search, sent me to "Scottish English"on that, reserved for Scottish varieties of "received" British English.

Second, there's a number of items to unpack on "language" vs "dialect."

First of all, per friend Massimo Pigliucci, that's definitely a fuzzy demarcation issue. Other examples from the world of languages? Are Mandarin and Cantonese dialects or separate languages? Plattdeutsch and Swiss High German? 

Or, within the matter at hand, British and American English?

Back to the matter at hand.

Wikipedia calls it "an Anglic language variety."

As for "language" vs "dialect," it says:

As there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing a language from a dialect, scholars and other interested parties often disagree about the linguistic, historical and social status of Scots, particularly its relationship to English.

To use the British English term, I'll plump again for "dialect." And, while Wiki notes that some scholars do call it a language? "Mandarin" is considered separate language from "Cantonese," BUT ..  In fact, Wiki says "Mandarin Chinese" is one of several varieties of Han Chinese. "True" language of the "Cantonese" type is only in a relatively small portion of southeastern China.

Anyway, the main issue that Atlas Obscura gets wrong is the claim that the Norman Conquest created a break between Old English in Scotland and in England. People who know the history of Scotland-England wars, and Norman barons holding fiefs in both countries by the 1200s, know it ain't so. They also know that there was no "wall" between the two countries.

Wiki's entry on the history of Scots has more. I quote:

After the 12th century early northern Middle English began to spread north and eastwards. It was from this dialect that Early Scots, known to its speakers as "English" (Inglis), began to develop, which is why in the late 12th century Adam of Dryburgh described his locality as "in the land of the English in the Kingdom of the Scots"[4] and why the early 13th century author of de Situ Albanie thought that the Firth of Forth "divides the kingdoms of the Scots and of the English"

There you go.

Did it then diverge? Yes, but AFTER that:

Divergence from Northumbrian Middle English was influenced by the Norse of Scandinavian-influenced Middle English-speaking immigrants from the North and Midlands of England during the 12th and 13th centuries, Dutch and Middle Low German through trade and immigration from the low countries, and Romance via ecclesiastical and legal Latin, Norman and later Parisian French due to the Auld Alliance.

There you go.

As for shifts in pronunciation? Happened within different types of German, too, no invasion involved. 

Otherwise, per that Wiki article and another specifically on Middle Scots, pronunciation and other differences took off from 1400 on.

In other words, what happened was not the Norman Conquest, but Bannockburn and the rise of the House of Stuart, which, to further trump Atlas Obscura, arose from a Norman baron.

Does the Dallas Museum of Art need a $175 million overhaul?

That's what it plans. Details from Strategic Government Insider:

The Dallas Museum of Art (DMA) has launched a two-stage global competition to find architect-led multidisciplinary design teams to lead the $150 million – $175 million expansion and redesign project. The goal is to enable the Texas institution to set the standard for 21st-century museums. 

leadership envisions additions that would yield flexible gallery spaces, a reorganization of the DMA’s circulation and entrances and a “holistic reapportioning of internal space.” They would like to add an auditorium, event spaces, staff facilities, dining and retail spaces. 

The first stage of the competition will involve a presentation. Competitors will be required to show their overall approach and experience. At a minimum, teams must include a lead design architect, landscape architect, exhibition designer and engineers. 

Five teams will be selected in the spring to move into the second phase. They will engage with the museum and prepare concept designs that will be displayed at a public exhibition during the summer. Each finalist will receive a $50,000 honorarium for their concepts along with up to $10,000 for expenses. 

Funding for this project is set to launch late this year. The deadline to enter the competition is March 15.

Interesting.

More in a Dallas Morning News story.

==

Linked within it, a 2022 News piece discusses the first DMA mentions of expansion plans, and whether the footprint would expand vertically, horizontally, or a bit of both — or launch a separate "satellite" campus at its original home in Fair Park — as well as calls for it to be better about reaching out to minority communities.

That piece also discusses other issues that have grown in volume in the 21st century. Foremost is where major donors to any museum have gotten their money from. Military contracting and fossil fuels extraction are just two of the prickly areas.

Related? Some of the "Fast Forward" art donors have sold some of the items that were in their original bequests to the DMA. Maybe it doesn't need to expand as much as it claims.

Speaking of that, Mark Lamster also notes that the DMA has a small endowment compared to Houston. Interestingly, he doesn't look over to Cowtown and ask about the Kimbell (surely larger) or the Amon Carter. (A Yelp reviewer of the Kimbell says it has the nation's second largest art museum endowment after the Getty. If so, no wonder that other than King Tut tours, most the "A list" traveling art shows go to the Kimbell, not the DMA, when they hit the Metromess.)

As for space? There's also the option, as at a place like Indianapolis, of cleaning house. Art museums in San Antonio or Austin might be buyers. Or, in a smaller place like Waco, getting Baylor's art museum to expand. Or Denton, right up the road, where the Patterson has room to expand and could be beefed up. If stuff weren't sold to it, items could be sent there on a rotational basis.

Personally, I think they could get rid of a fair amount of their "Americana" stuff, especially the furniture. And, the side room with the one founding donor family's "heritage" material or whatever could also be gotten rid of, or if that's not legally possible, put in storage or something.

Within classic dead white males European art, most of it is not close to A-list. Get rid of it.

The DMA does beat the Kimbell on New World art, both North American pottery, and the occasional rug, and South American goldwork. Getting rid of a fair amount of other stuff might let them play that up more, as well as their sub-Saharan African collection. Also, they beat the Kimbell on Greco-Roman antiquities. So, consolidate and get rid of as much shit as you can that you're not obligated to keep because of current endowment strings. Then, build on your strengths. In addition to the above, you have a lot of Muslim art rotating in from Keir Collection stuff. Build on that. Get more in the way of modern American Indian items. More sub-Saharan African. Etc., etc.

Banned from r/AcademicBiblical AND r/AskBibleScholars

 Not quite "banned in Boston," unless "Naugrith the Nazi" is from Boston, England.

Anyway, one of my friends on Goodreads had suggested the former of the two about six months ago. And, it was fun dusting off my undergraduate classical languages degree, plus my divinity degree.

Then, said person above came along as a new moderator.

And, we had a couple of dustups, and a final one two weeks ago. Quoting from where I posted on a subreddit of my own, which is deliberately restricted.

So I was threatened a couple of weeks ago, by "old friend" Naugrith the Nazi.

As posted on my own Reddit home page, copied and pasted: 

===

Removing two posts of mine at r/AcademicBiblical because they allegedly don't have academic citations.

Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.

Posting links to your own uncited opinions on your blog are inappropriate as an academic source. You have had comments removed for this before. Consider this a warning. If you do this again you may receive a ban.

If you are unsure what constitutes an appropriate academic source please familiarize yourself with the guidance in our Rules post here.

If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods using modmail or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.

===

My response?

This isn't a first- or even a second-level comment, first of all, and I link to a discussion with a classicist, at one link, on Christian population, and to discussion by Biblical scholars on another link within it.

I was advised at Goodreads when this sub was suggested ...

And, I started my own sub, too ...

And, of course, I've also blogged about him being a Nazi. And, that's why I started this sub.

And his response, to which I shall not counter-respond. First, he makes assumptions about "our readership." Second, maybe I have personalized this, but so has he, and had he, from his previous response. We've been through this before. Also, other sites that are technically blogs and by people who aren't currently in academia have been allowed on the site, even as first-level comments. (They're good, but they're "individual scholar" level if the have graduate theological degrees, which many do not.)  And so, Naugi's claim all comments are moderated the same? BS.

I also posted in the subreddit "Biblical Critics" that I started as well as my Reddit homepage.

A few hours later, I found out I had been banned! And, Naugrith or one of the other mods, also perhaps a mod there, got me banned from AskBibleScholars as well.

I can supposedly still read, but can't post or comment.

Later, one of the other mods, an older-in-experience mod, claimed I was "way messed up."

Wrong. Dude was snide from the start, as I have evidence of in my original post. The one mistake I made, "Rye," was not reporting him to you and other moderators at the time. Let me also add that I was not alone in objecting to his heavy-handedness. You and others surely saw that and ... said and did nothing. (Rye's also been blocked.)

Otherwise?  I linked to a Quora piece about toxic moderators. I chose "Nazi," and "on the spectrum" (that was actually first) as specific sarcastic descriptors. Just for Rye, I'll now add "anal-retentive." Beyond it, you can find PLENTY of other discussions on the web, even within Reddit, of suck-ass moderators. (Although a member for five-plus years, I've only been active the past six months, so I'm still learning. For others, here's what mods can and can't do.)

Otherwise, re the Nazi saying, in essence, it's just a blog? "Is That in the Bible" is just a blog, and it has pieces from it regularly posted, not just as second- or third-level comments, but first-level ones. Also re You Know Who, you have to read well into one of its pieces to see a link to someone else. Paul Davidson is good, but it's just a blog, and he doesn't even have a professional background.

One part of me says, hey, go there still and write screeds about them. 

Well, a year or so ago, I thought about doing that with Open Sky after Patheos had shut its atheism vertical and it was formed in response.

But, after doing that for a month?

• I decided to stop wasting my time
• I realized I'm not that good a hater.

That said, on Reddit, I have blocked Naugrith already. And some others.

(Phew; Blogger's screw-ups almost trashed this piece as I was going to do a brief update. And ...)

I do find it interesting that, after I posted about starting my own sub, I was "pursued." I also find it interesting that, whether or not he was a mod  there, this spilled over to r/AskBibleScholars, or rather "was spilled over" by people not named me. 

==

Other sidebars?

1. Long before the banhammer, I noticed that mods at both sites said the sites weren't about theology. Technically, there are four branches of theology and exegesis is one of them, so this was bad terminology use on their part.

2. That said, they regularly let posts about "theology" stand.

==

Update, April 28: One of the new mods (before or after I was banned I'm not sure) claims that the rule on "cite your academic sources" was made applicable to lower-level comments more than a year ago. News to me. The poster says, "delete it then," and BobbyBobbie the mod says: "That's the neat part; I already did." A junior Naugrith and another Nazi.

And, on AskAChristian, about justifying her morals, after accusing an agnostic or atheist of circular reasoning, this circular reasoning of hers: 

How do I justify their existence? I thought it would have been pretty obvious: they are expressions of God's will and binding upon all moral creatures as the inheritors of a system, not the creator of it. 

Whether or not this creates any supposed dilemma is besides the point. The mere existence of them is supported by theism, and imo unable to be grounded under atheism.

got a rebuke and a block (along with an accusation of being more a Nazi than Naugrith, calling her a 1930s partisan of a Central European state). It's also "interesting" that the atheist to whom she was responding, their comment is now deleted. Such TOLERANCE!

==

Update, Aug. 21: To the degree I still look at posts there with extended comments, Naugrith the Nazi doesn't seem very active among mods. Shock me, by how many groups he was a moderator in at the time he joined r/AcademicBiblical. I suspect he has told himself, "my work is done here," and asked to, and become, a mod for at least three more groups.

==

Update, Oct. 17: Melophage, one of the moderators at the time, and one who pushed for me to be banned from both sites, and then even chased me over to my then just-created restricted site, is now a high-faluting "moderator emeritus" just seven months later, like AcademicBiblical has some sort of apostolic succession even as it burns through moderators. Go fundamentalize yourself on both counts.

The Origins of Judaism, Part 3: Miscellaneous

The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal by Yonatan Adler
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Simply a great book. Adler’s look at archaeological and related evidence for when various practices commanded in the Torah of the Pentateuch became widespread is simple, and has more and more data to be researched today. The rest of my overview can be found either in Part 1 of this expanded review, or in Part 2, or at the original review link below.

First, the exact phrasing above? Adler uses “Pentateuch” for the five books “of Moses.” Torah is used for the “teaching,” which often was law or “nomos,” within them, to then ask where it was discussed literarily centuries later, ie, Christian New Testament, Qumran, Josephus, apocrypha, etc. That’s his terminus ad quem. Therefore, he does not use the Mishna; sayings attributed to 1st century CE rabbis by the second century may not hold up.

Then, as noted, he also looks at archaeological digs and related for their evidence.

He looks at several areas of Torah.

The conclusion he has is that based on the “lived experience” of practitioners of what became Judaism, none of these were widespread before the start of the Hellenistic area, and in most cases, it wasn’t until Hasmonean times. In fact, that’s his summary — that the Torah as prescriptive not descriptive was pushed and promulgated as a Hasmonean unity document or constitution of sorts.

Notes below are my observations and stimulations, as well as what I learned. As noted in posting my review link to a couple of biblical criticism subreddits, I am going to do some more in-depth breakouts to some portions of Adler's book in a series of posts, while still providing a link to the whole review with each one.

The third big part I want to break out further?

A laundry list of items Adler puts under "miscellaneous." In some cases, while the book was five-star overall, it would have been nice for him to flesh these out more, even if that was beyond his stated remit.

The first is circumcision. Adler notes that outside the Pentateuch, Philistines are called "uncircumcised." But, no indication is given as to why Israel was, nor is it noted that other West Semites were as well. And, they’re the only people identified as such outside of it. This is one area where I wished he would have discussed what historians or cultural anthropologists have found about circumcision among West Semites.

Second is Sabbaths. Adler notes a 1 Maccabees exemption for self-defense but tale in 2 Maccabees appears to reject this exemption, the Jews killed in the cave because they would not fight. Sabbath restrictions are nonexistent outside of the Pentateuch in the Tanakh as far as any acts being barred on Sabbath, except Nehemiah, who talks about people treading grain and such, and in another verse, promises to bar the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath, plus a lesser verse from Jeremiah, Adler notes.

Ezekiel talks about profaning Sabbaths, but no details; ditto 2nd Isaiah. In both cases, this appears about Sabbaths as religious holidays, not specific proscriptions, Adler says. On reading this, I remembered that 2nd Isaiah also talks about things like New Moon festivals, which would seem to further underscore Adler's analysis.

Sabbath work restrictions were an intense matter of deliberation at the turn of the eras. Adler notes documents from Qumran barring bad words and thoughts, too, not just work. And, of course, this was another area of dispute between Jesus and Pharisees (and in Mark, the alleged Herodian fellow travelers of them, too.) Adler that before the 2nd century BCE, there's not even clear evidence of a 7-day week for Jews and that Sabbath was more likely a general religious holiday; see above on Ezekiel and 2nd Isaiah. And, even if it were, clearly it wasn't being generally observed much before Hasmonean times.

The third is Passover and Unleavened Bread. Unleavened Bread festival of some sort is referenced in Joshua. 2 Chronicles 30 talks about Hezekiah having a big Passover blowout and TWO seven-day periods after that. This is NOT in the parallel in 2 Kings, which itself shows that it's almost certainly aspirational rather than real. 2 Kings 23 talks about Josiah’s Passover, with more in 2 Chronicles. This would seem to undercut the splendor of Hezekiah's alleged observance, too. Elephantine writings talk of Passover circa 420 along with Unleavened Bread, but no details on observances.

Next? Yom Kippur. No Tanakh cites outside the Pentateuch, Adler says. He says there is one explicit Josephus reference and a couple of apparent Qumran ones. 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah, by silence, are unaware of it, as both talk about Sukkoth, which comes just after, without reference to Day of Atonement. Ditto Ezekiel. This is not mentioned in New Testament gospels, either, not even in John, which mentions the three great festivals. Hebrews does have an apparent citation in Chapter 9, but it’s a reference to the priestly action of the Pentateuch and not anything communal, not even the Leviticus16:29 or 23:27 actions. Aharon misses a small trick by not noting that.

That means that Yom Kippur as observed today is almost certainly Rabbinic in the “push” for it, and not Hasmonean, and likely was a substitute with the destruction of the Second Temple, to go beyond Adler. This discussion is, per the intro to the "Miscellaneous," probably the biggest area where Adler could have done more, even if it meant expanding his "remit." And, that would have been discussing just what the Mishna, or any Tannanitic comment outside the Mishna, said about this observance. It's clear, per Wiki's discussion of Yom Kippur and its Avodah that this was post-Temple, but do we know more about its emergence and development?

Sukkoth is in Temple Scroll and Jubilees, and may well have been actually practiced in early Hasmonean times. Neh. 8 has the one reference outside the Penteteuch, though its "four species" greatly differ from Leviticus.

Menorah? The Pentateuch-prescribed version has no attesting elsewhere pre-Maccabean. Solomon's Temple is described as having lampstands, but they're not the same, it is clear.

Adler's conclusion, and one with which I agree?

Even if the persecution of Antiochus IV was real, it may well have targeted just the temple cult, per Daniel. The Torah was elevated in Maccabean times as part a of Hasmonean unity program. John Collins and Reinhard Kratz propose this. Hyrcanus coercing Idumeans to support "the whole law" may support this. So may the rise of Jewish sectarianism upon independence. 

Update: Jon D. Levinson thinks Adler pushes some doors too hard, not just on individual instances, but especially on the claim that before Ptolemaic times, the Torah was seen as descriptive more than prescriptive. I would respond that some of his pushback idealized Deuteronomy, assumes a relatively early date for final or semi-final redaction of Leviticus (vis a vis Ezekiel) and other things. He does, interestingly, note that Adler studied pre-PhD at an Orthodox seminary in Israel, and with a clear "is"/"ought" distinction on the Torah, would appear to still be an Orthodox Jew at heart.

View all my reviews

Pastors worried about ChatGPT doth protest too much

Yeah, religious leaders are freaking their heads out, per the AP, about ChatGPT writing AI sermons.

In part, maybe they're worried it's better than them:

Todd Brewer, a New Testament scholar and managing editor of the Christian website Mockingbird, wrote in December about an experiment of his own -- asking ChatGPT to write a Christmas sermon for him. 

He was specific, requesting a sermon “based upon Luke’s birth narrative, with quotations from Karl Barth, Martin Luther, Irenaeus of Lyon, and Barack Obama.” 

Brewer wrote that he was “not prepared” when ChatGPT responded with a creation that met his criteria and “is better than several Christmas sermons I’ve heard over the years.” 

“The A.I. even seems to understand what makes the birth of Jesus genuinely good news,” Brewer added.

There you go.

On the other hand, Brewer went on to voice what many other people claimed in the piece:

Yet the ChatGPT sermon “lacks any human warmth,” he wrote. “The preaching of Artificial Intelligence can’t convincingly sympathize with the human plight.”

Problem?

Yes, and not with ChatGPT.

This is social science 101 problem; There's no double-blinded study on the AI sermons lacking a heart, soul, emotions or whatever.

Riffing on Tales of Whoa, who I saw post this a couple of weeks ago (and from whence the idea for last Saturday's post came), this is exactly NOT a Turing test, for exactly that reason.

Let's go next to Mike Glenn:

In Brentwood, Tennessee, Mike Glenn, senior pastor for 32 years at Brentwood Baptist Church, wrote a blog post in January after a computer-savvy assistant joked that Glenn could be replaced by an AI machine. “I’m not buying it,” Glenn wrote. “AI will never be able to preach a decent sermon. Why? Because the gospel is more than words. It’s the evidence of a changed life.”

And, the well-known Russell Moore:

Also weighing in with an online essay was the Rev. Russell Moore, formerly head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy division and now editor-in-chief of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. He confided to his readers that his first sermon, delivered at age 12, was a well-intentioned mess. 

“Preaching needs someone who knows the text and can convey that to the people — but it’s not just about transmitting information,” Moore wrote. “When we listen to the Word preached, we are hearing not just a word about God but a word from God.” 

“Such life-altering news needs to be delivered by a human, in person,” he added. “A chatbot can research. A chatbot can write. Perhaps a chatbot can even orate. But a chatbot can’t preach.”

Well, a chatbot can't preach, but a humanoid robot could, especially with a megachurch with satellite campuses seeing a video sermon.

As I told Tales, first of all, pastors, priests and rabbis have been preaching out of sermon books for decades if not centuries. And, whether canned sermons or their own, despite homiletic delivery training, many of them can't preach that well, either. Per Moore, they either write or deliver well-intentioned messes at 52. Beyond that, per Brewer, if I heard a pastor cite Irenaeus in a sermon outside a collegiate or divinity school campus chapel, I'd think him clueless for other reasons.

What I really see this worry covering is a follow-on to COVID slashing church attendance. With the rise of the "nones" being accelerated by that, these pastors are worried that, instead of the old time cable channels like Trinity Broadcasting, per what I said above about video sermons, you're going to get chatbot-robot sermons streaming on YouTube.

Beyond that, metaphysics aside, if you're worried enough to claim a ChatGPT doesn't have "soul," maybe your own sermons don't? And, besides, sermons aren't the only part of pastoral ministry. Maybe you're not doing good counseling? Not making hospital and homebound visits? Of course, at megachurches, the grifting chief pastor doesn't do that anyway.

The Origins of Judaism, Part 2: Graven images

 The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal by Yonatan Adler
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Simply a great book. Adler’s look at archaeological and related evidence for when various practices commanded in the Torah of the Pentateuch became widespread is simple, and has more and more data to be researched today. The rest of my overview can be found either in Part 1 of this expanded review or at the original review link below. Part 3, about "miscellaneous" items, is also now up.

First, the exact phrasing above? Adler uses “Pentateuch” for the five books “of Moses.” Torah is used for the “teaching,” which often was law or “nomos,” within them, to then ask where it was discussed literarily centuries later, ie, Christian New Testament, Qumran, Josephus, apocrypha, etc. That’s his terminus ad quem. 

Then, as noted, he also looks at archaeological digs and related for their evidence.

He looks at several areas of Torah.

The conclusion he has is that based on the “lived experience” of practitioners of what became Judaism, none of these were widespread before the start of the Hellenistic area, and in most cases, it wasn’t until Hasmonean times. In fact, that’s his summary — that the Torah as prescriptive not descriptive was pushed and promulgated as a Hasmonean unity document or constitution of sorts.

Notes below are my observations and stimulations, as well as what I learned. As noted in posting my review link to a couple of biblical criticism subreddits, I am going to do some more in-depth breakouts to some portions of Adler's book in a series of posts, while still providing a link to the whole review with each one.

The second big part I want to break out further?

Graven images. This won't get a long treatment like part 1, but will get a bit longer than the initial book review.

This includes mosaics and such like the famous synagogue at Dura-Europus, which is well outside the end date of Adler’s focus. Mainly, though, beyond figurines to Yahweh or other goes, the focus is on human or animal depictions on coinage. Pre-Hasmonean times, the circulation of coinage with images, even if not human ones, is attested in the land of Israel; Adler shows examples from Ptolemaic times. 

And, that's the issue that I want to note a little further. First, unlike with unclean catfish in Davidic times, we have an illustration of looser stances on graven images immediately before the Hasmonean Judean state. This ties directly with Adler's conclusion, with which I agree.

Even if the persecution of Antiochus IV was real, it may well have targeted just the temple cult, per Daniel. The Torah was elevated in Maccabean times as part a of Hasmonean unity program. John Collins and Reinhard Kratz propose this. Hyrcanus coercing Idumeans to support "the whole law" may support this. So may the rise of Jewish sectarianism upon independence. 

At the same time, we have a New Testament pronouncement story being exposed as a possible fake.

And, that is Jesus' famous "render unto Caesar," per the old King James, in Mark 12 and parallels. I quote the whole thing, from Mark. (I use Mark because, above all, I'm a two-source person. Also, in this case, it's one of those Markan nutteries of "the Pharisees and Herodians" allegedly working together.):

13 Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” 16 And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose title?” They answered, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.

There you go. We either have the added, but unmentioned, hypocrisy of pious Pharisees handling allegedly verboten coinage, or we have a made-up pericope. Christopher Zeichmann has strongly argued that it is made-up, and that it specifically reflects the start of the fiscus Judaicus imposed by Vespasian to replace the temple tax. (This issue was not addressed by Adler.)

Update: Jon D. Levinson thinks Adler pushes some doors too hard, not just on individual instances, but especially on the claim that before Ptolemaic times, the Torah was seen as descriptive more than prescriptive. I would respond that some of his pushback idealized Deuteronomy, assumes a relatively early date for final or semi-final redaction of Leviticus (vis a vis Ezekiel) and other things. He does, interestingly, note that Adler studied pre-PhD at an Orthodox seminary in Israel, and with a clear "is"/"ought" distinction on the Torah, would appear to still be an Orthodox Jew at heart.

View all my reviews