I relate to her opening paragraph (even thought I don't agree with her on every point):
There are two sorts of people in the world. There are those who live examined lives, searching and questing, eagerly reaching to find some sort of meaning. These are the kind of people who cannot lie to themselves; who would prefer the truth, even if it breaks them, even if it terrifies them. These people experience the tremendous grandeur of the problems in religion, all of that which is compelling and worrisome. They are the sort who must know things, who cannot deny themselves knowledge. They are curious and interested in everything around them, in every path to insight.
After Shabbos I went to the website and read some of the comments on the editorial. Some are interesting and others are somewhat predictable.
Here's an excerpt from a comment by a user who goes by "jackie":
Call me intellectually dishonest for asking, but is the Orthodox populace better off if we're all familiar with the DH? ...Very sad.
I'm not into the idea of intellectual free-for-all, that as long as you're being intellectually honest, it doesn't matter what you conclude. Since I have a mesora, my epistemological plane precludes me from that kind of ideology.
21 comments:
Shocking that there are no Bible classes that study the documentary hypothesis at Stern. Kudos to this student for demanding more.
Why is that shocking?
I have to admire her for speaking out about this as an issue in a place that wouldn't consider a lack of DH learning an issue...I do feel like her writing could be more effective in intellectual spheres if she was a little more dispassionate, though.
HH,
She may have wanted to keep that confidential...
I still agree with orthoprax's wonder. Why is that shocking?
I don't think so, she has been quite open about that on her blog. But if the bal hablog wants, he can delete that.
I was going to say that I am happy to do what ever Oliva/Chana wants me to do but I see the comment is already deleted.
this is crazy. anyone who takes judaism seriously should want intellectual honesty. we should also strive to learn torah with all of the tools available to us and the documentary hypothesis sheds light on the text. i hate it that orthodoxy has become dumbed down judaism.
when i was in fifth grade my teacher said that she believed that "the torah was written by very very very very smart men." and it did nothing at all to shatter my faith. it was no big deal. i still grew up to become orthodox. theres really no reason to keep the whole idea that God literally wrote the bible. the bible is an even more powerful document knowing that people wrote it as a record of their interaction with the divine.
Yael,
If you accept the DH, it makes it difficult to see the Bible as any sort of authority. It undermines Halacha and doctrine based on the text.
Yael,
It is my understanding that one of the primary differences between Orthodox and Conservative Judaism at a theological level is the fact that OJ believes Torah is the word of God transmitted to Moshe. CJ believes in more of a divine inspiration, or "record of the encounter with Divine".
I could care less about labels, but what is your definition of "Orthodox"?
Orthoprax-
"It undermines Halacha and doctrine based on the text."
Why?
I know that OJ likes to think everything is the Word of G-d, and this must create a fundamental difference in world view from those who do not. However.
All academia is based on building conceptual structures on previous texts - that's what academia is. History, philosophy, literature, even math and science, everything is based on a previous "mesorah" handed down and extrapolated or built upon. If you look at the halachik system from a purely academic perspective, what difference does it make whether or not the Torah came directly from G-d's mouth? It is what it is; it spawned what it spawned. SO WHAT?
>If you look at the halachik system from a purely academic perspective, what difference does it make whether or not the Torah came directly from G-d's mouth?
None what so ever. The problem comes when you have to LIVE your life based on halacha.
E-kvethcer-
that's what I mean when I say that you decide whether or not to buy into it. The G-d thing factors into that decision-making process. However, once you've made that decision, all external factors should be more or less irrelevant.
orthoprax- no it doesn't in some ways it makes it even more meaningful. it is our earliest record of our interaction with God, making it extremely relevant in our every day lives.
e-kvetcher- im an observant jew and culturally, i identify with the orthodox movement.
miri is right. i am an observant jew because this is the context in which i see my relationship with God based on history, and tradition. i believe that halacha can give you a framework in which to live a beautiful moral life (though its not the only way to accomplish this goal.)
-yael
Miri,
"Why?"
Because the way the fundamental Talmudic conception of Halacha works is by basing judgements on little variations on the text. If the significance of a word being spelled one way over the other or a phrase being here and there is nothing then the whole authoritative construct of basic Halacha is put in question.
If you're like Yael who follows Halacha out of a sense of tradition then this may not be a huge problem, but for those who actually see the texts as authority and law then this perspective is exceedingly damaging. It's like deciding now that Marbury vs. Madison was based on a complete misreading of the Constitution. The last 200 years of legal precedent is undermined.
Yael,
"no it doesn't in some ways it makes it even more meaningful. it is our earliest record of our interaction with God, making it extremely relevant in our every day lives."
Ok, that's nice. Would you also look for meaning in the Epic of Gilgamesh or Hammurabi's Code? If these documents are all relics of the Iron Age and show clear derivation from one to the other, then why should we put the Torah on such a high pedestal?
Maybe the Sinai story is special, but is Noah? Are the laws in Exodus to stand as ideal for all ages?
if you read the torah in conjunction with the Epic of Gilgamesh and Hammurabi's Code, you can immediately see how different it is and how much more complex and modern it seems. the superficial similarities between the bible and those other texts only serve to highlight their vast vast differences. the torah appears to be worlds apart. all of the sudden you are thrust into a text with a complex narrative and an advanced moral system, that sounds especially modern in light of the other texts. when you see how similar they are in form, you also begin to notice how different they really are in content and in value. I dont think that the torah is relevant because God wrote, it but rather because of what it actually says. if it were no different in content from other ancient documents, then no matter who wrote it, there would be no compelling reason to base your life around it. probably the most interesting illustration of this would be the account of the creation of the world found in the enuma elish (which was written long before the bible) and the account found in the beginning of bereshit. their superficial similarities are astounding, but their underlying implications are so radically different. (im including this reference because you can probably look it up on google if you are really interested.)
we are in the possession of a complex literary tradition, that is not always as tightly structured as we would like to think. its diversity and its small occasional inconsistencies are what make it such a durable and powerful document.
furthermore there is enough literary, scientific, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence out there to suggest that the torah was composed of a number of different texts. this strong possibility needs to be considered seriously, and its potential ramifications should be explored. saying that you dont want to consider this option, simply because you would prefer that it didnt exist, is not an intellectually honest way of dealing with the problem. i believe that the bible can stand to scrutiny. in fact i think our study of the bible has always benefited from close scrutiny. people who believe that these ideas are threatening, dont have much confidence in their judaism.
-yael
also, our commitment to torah has always been based on our commitment to its values. that doesnt change, even when you change your perspective about its authorship.
-yael
Yael,
"if you read the torah in conjunction with the Epic of Gilgamesh and Hammurabi's Code, you can immediately see how different it is and how much more complex and modern it seems."
What you are describing is simply apologetics. You act as though you are open minded about the original intent of the Biblical composers, but really you are all too willing to install your own bias and project what you want the Bible to be for what it actually is.
James Kugel, famed Biblical scholar and observant Jew writes this which you may find particularly relevant:
http://www.jameskugel.com/apologetics.pdf
I am all for study of Biblical criticism and the DH - I just think its conclusions are completely incompatible with Orthodoxy as we know it.
Post a Comment