In grade school we are taught Chumash (Old Testament) as if it were literal. But when we get older and ask questions (600,000 slaves left Egypt?!) we are told the Torah is metaphorical. I find this disingenuous.
Of course, we do use stories to teach lessons to kids. Aesop's Fables for example. But we disclose to the kids ahead of time that these are just fictional parables with true moral lessons. We never give the false impression that actual mice had a town hall meeting to discuss how to attach a bell to a cat.
In my opinion this is a major problem with how Tanach is taught. If we want kids to understand that it is metaphorical then we have to disclose that up front. Personally, I don't buy the explanation that MO gives that we are supposed to take the Torah as metaphorical. I think even the MO really expect you to take the Torah literally on some level. What do you think?
-------------------------
Make a donation to the LubabNoMore/CandyMan Barack Obama fundraiser because we need a President with the courage and integrity to change Washington. If you're sick of the last eight years please vote for Barack Obama and join us in supporting his campaign.
34 comments:
Unrelated to the discussion at hand: I have a blogging question for the two bloggers here and I don't see a contact email. Can one of you email me? chanson dot exmormon at gmail dot com. Thanks.
I touched on this as well in the comments of my most recent blog post. My problem is not whether we take the torah literally or allegorically, my problem is that we decide to do it because something doesn't make sense to us or because there is evidence against it. It just wreaks of intellectual dishonesty to say that parts of the torah must be taken word for word, while other parts are just teaching us a lesson allegorically.
It just leads to the issue of who decides what "makes sense" and can be literal and what can't be? Can I make a personal decision that Noach's boat was allegorical because, as an engineer, i don't believe the boat described in the torah was seaworthy?
I've never heard any Orthodox argue that anything in the Torah was principally metaphorical or allegorical apart from maybe the first few chapters of Genesis. Of course there are other interpretations than the peshat but the peshat is held to be true too usually.
Moom,
Actually there are longstanding traditions within Judaism that take very non-literal approaches to scripture. Maimonides famously regarded all anthropomorphic references to God as purely figurative, as well as non-literal understandings of prophecy and that virtually all miracles in the Torah were either fortuitous natural events, esoteric allegories, or dreams.
In any case, regarding LNM's original point, I think Chumash in MO schools are essentially taught pshat. This is the story and it is taught as history. That said though, as a kid I frequently took liberties with the simple way it was presented to us and how to properly orient it with respect to the science and history I otherwise knew about. I knew all along that the Torah is often non-literal and I felt free to use my own judgement.
So, yes, it was taught to me with the air of simple-level story telling, but there was a well-perfused sense of lability on the details and meaning.
Chumash sounds pretty good compared to what I was taught in grade school - that men are descended from monkeys! LOL! ROFL!
Maybe that was a metaphor; I dunno.
Stein was taught "that men are descended from monkeys"? No wonder he is so confused.
Even better, from bacteria. LOL!!
Let's hope it was a metaphor.
>Actually there are longstanding traditions within Judaism that take very non-literal approaches to scripture
But aren't these ad-hoc allegorical explanations are always done after the fact, after the literal menaing has been falsified or otherwise discredited.
On my blog, I don't do any ad hoc stuff. Just the midrashim.
>> non-literal approaches to scripture
> But aren't these ad-hoc allegorical explanations are always done after the fact
I wonder if there are any examples of stories from the Torah that could be taken literally but we have a mesorah to learn them to be metaphorical. i.e. a non-miraculous event that we take allegorically.
Make a donation to the LubabNoMore/CandyMan Barack Obama fundraiser because we need a President with the courage and integrity to change Washington. If you're sick of the last eight years please vote for Barack Obama and join us in supporting his campaign.++++++++++++++++++++++++++Oh Jesus Lubab, why not give up already. How many Lubies are going to vote for Obama ? Or normal people for that matter. This guy Obama is thick in with theives, liars and all kinds of weirdos and you want him to lead this country ? To where ?? The thought of Obama being president of America scares me so much that I am thinking of moving to New Zealand. between him and Olmert the two of them will bring down both Israel and America......Avi
Avi,
> thick in with theives, liars and all kinds of weirdos and you want him to lead this country ? To where ?? The thought of Obama being president of America scares me so much that I am thinking of moving to New Zealand.
I don't think this is a rational decision for you. I don't expect to change your vote. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who read this blog have already made up their mind. My goal is to get those people who already support Obama politically to also support him financially.
First of all, I completely agree with this post. The system for teaching Torah as literal and only then adding in that it is metaphorical is misleading. It also talks down to kids, which does not help them feel smart and be smart.
Then again, Orthodoxy does not value independent thought, so maybe they intentionally talk down to the kids.
As for the last comment, (I hope Lubab is okay with this tangent onto politics), but about Obama: You talk about how much you do not want Obama as president, but you provide no solid reasons. Which thief is he in cahoots with? Why are you so scared?
Besides, if Obama really is so terrible to you, take a look at Palin. Not only is she unqualified and ignorant about the government, but also the fact that McCain chose her simply because she has a uterus and he thought that women would vote for her because of that is horrifying. That should scare you far more than Obama, who has more experience than and is more qualified than Palin, more fit than McCain (this matters, because if McCain dies in office, unqualified Palin is the Pres.), and has plans to change Bush's ineffective policies. It seems as though Palin never attended a U.S History class or read over the Constitution, but you would choose her over the educated Obama? McCain/Palin want to deprive all women of the choice of whether or not to have an abortion or give birth, leave it up to each state whether or not to teach evolution or creationism (which defeats the purpose of a national standard and is like letting people choose whether or not to teach Biology), keep our troops in war, where they are using up valuable funds with no sign of success, they have no real plan for boosting our economy, and they plan to keep drilling instead of looking for realistic energy sources?!
You have got to be kidding. McCain and Palin are a disaster.
Lubab--
If I had any money, I would give some to your cause. I strongly support Obama and all that he will do for this country.
I wish you success in your fund raising.
There's no question that the vast majority of Bible tales were meant quite literally. Even the "Garden of Eden" story - which Milton considered a parable, among many others - is given geographic coordinates in the text. Some Bible stories refer to specific sites and explain the origins of their place-names based on miraculous phenomena.
On the other hand, sometimes these place-names are apparently not meant literally (e.g. when we are told that Esau asked for red soup, and therefore earned the name Edom - he got it because he was ruddy!). I have also argued in this blog that the figure of Joseph is a symbol for resurrection. So the Biblical authors did have ideas of symbolism and metaphors.
I wonder if there are any examples of stories from the Torah that could be taken literally but we have a mesorah to learn them to be metaphorical. i.e. a non-miraculous event that we take allegorically.
The rabbis of the Talmud took great liberties with the text. For instance, there was an opinion that the law of the rebellious son was allegorical. There are even opinions in the Talmud that state that the entire Torah of Moses is an allegory (mashal hu).
It is not clear to what extent the rabbis themselves believed these statements, or to what extent the statements themselves were made allegorically.
Overall, I think the correct approach is to try to discern what the author's original intent was. Did s/he mean the story literally, or as a metaphor? Close readings can often reveal the truth.
> Maimonides famously regarded all anthropomorphic references to God as purely
> figurative
OK. But I never heard anyone mainstream Orthodox say that there weren't really 600,000 adult men leaving Egypt for example.
And yes I've heard people try to explain away such things as the parting of the Red Sea - Moses just knew when to put on the show.
But the obvious corrolary of that is that the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai is not literal either. Which is fine with me, but pretty much quickly is heading to the end of Orthodoxy in a meaningful sense.
>no sign of success
NO signs of success???
And just to throw this in for Obama. It discusses him killing the Born Alive Infant legislation.
http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm
and the otherside
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/02/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php
Margo,
> If I had any money, I would give some to your cause. I strongly support Obama and all that he will do for this country.
I wish you success in your fund raising.
You don't need big money to contribute. Just donate $5, $10, $18 bucks because every little bit helps. Obama has raised nearly $200 Million from small contributions (donations of less than $200). This campaign isn't about big name donors who can drop $2,300. This is about millions of people like you and me making millions of "small" donations. You want to donate and you have an extra $5. C'mon, you'll be glad you did it. :)
Baal,
"But aren't these ad-hoc allegorical explanations are always done after the fact, after the literal menaing has been falsified or otherwise discredited."
Sometimes, but not always. We know that Rishonim and midrashim understood the first six days as figurative and esoteric way before anyone doubted the short age of the Earth. There was no particular reason for the Rambam to call Balaam's talking donkey a dream.
LNM,
"I wonder if there are any examples of stories from the Torah that could be taken literally but we have a mesorah to learn them to be metaphorical. i.e. a non-miraculous event that we take allegorically."
An "eye for an eye"? When Yitzchak speaks about the "voice of Yaakov" he could literally have just been talking about the difference in the voice, but we have a tradition that sees it as a voice of politeness and full of learning. That's just off the top of my head.
Moom,
"OK. But I never heard anyone mainstream Orthodox say that there weren't really 600,000 adult men leaving Egypt for example."
Really? I have. I don't know how widely it's accepted, but I've heard the word for "thousand" be understood as "chiefs" thereby reducing the number of Israelites by a few orders of magnitude.
"But the obvious corrolary of that is that the giving of the Torah at Har Sinai is not literal either."
I don't really follow that, but there are sources which don't understand that literally either. What does it mean for God to "give" the Torah? What happened at Sinai? The Rambam, again, takes non-literal approaches on these topics.
e.g. Numbers 1:25
"Those that were counted of the tribe of Gad: Fifty four thousand six hundred and fifty".
That's a bit hard to interpret as Elef=Aluf or whatever?
Probably the main point for the truth of the Torah I was told when I was at Yeshiva (Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem) and probably before that was that God spoke to the Jewish people there directly. That it wasn't just Moses wandering up a mountain like Muhammed and coming back with a revelation. And that you could never make that up after the fact because the people would deny it. And then you have the chain of transmission as recounted in Pirqei Avot. But I think of course it is pretty easy to make up such stories after the fact, especially when you can discover the "sefer hatorah" in the temple in the reign of Yoshiyahu.
Well if you admit that if the whole matan Torah thing is an allegory and God never spoke to the Israelites there the whole argument of Orthodoxy against Biblical criticism etc seems to fall away...
So there is a slippery slope that starts when you try to find "scientific explanations" for apparently supernatural events in the Bible.
"Then again, Orthodoxy does not value independent thought, so maybe they intentionally talk down to the kids."
But atheism does - like in Communist Russia where anyone teaching religion was killed. Or even in modern day America, for that matter. Right.
JP,
Responding to every criticism of OJ by basically saying that "They're just as bad as other religions or cultures" only reinforces my point that Judaism has a lot of problems.
Faith is a choice you make and is only true because you believe it is.
Facts are true even if you don't believe in them.
Factual events can have implications unprovable, things of faith, based entirely on the mindset and the heart of the one making the choice what to believe about it.
Nonfactual events can have provable implications, things of substance, based entirely on the mindset of the people reacting to the ideas.
The line is rarely anything like clear. Actually, there's not much of a line.
Moom,
""Those that were counted of the tribe of Gad: Fifty four thousand six hundred and fifty".
That's a bit hard to interpret as Elef=Aluf or whatever?"
I agree. But some people do read it as 54 chiefs; 650 [men].
"Probably the main point for the truth of the Torah I was told when I was at Yeshiva (Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem) and probably before that was that God spoke to the Jewish people there directly."
Yes, that's an argument raised in kiruv circles. But what it means for God to "speak" is something understood to be rather esoteric, and therefore what was actually experienced is understood allegorically by many sources.
One can understand that *something* happened at Sinai and that some of scripture derives directly from that event without taking the text at its literal descriptions. Allegory doesn't mean fable. It can mean a real event overlaid with symbolic narrative.
"Maimonides famously regarded all anthropomorphic references to God as purely figurative, as well as non-literal understandings of prophecy and that virtually all miracles in the Torah were either fortuitous natural events, esoteric allegories, or dreams."
“A mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a biblical text, and explaining it figuratively, when the opposite theory can be supported by an equally good argument” (Guide to the Perplexed, Yale, page 199).
http://machzikeihadas.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-problem.html
Yirmiahu,
What's your point? Maimonides believed that he held decisive arguments in favor of figurative readings.
"What's your point?"
That even Maimonides restricts, serverely, when allegorization is permissible.
"Maimonides believed that he held decisive arguments in favor of figurative readings."
And the science that he based that allegorical approach is no longer tenable.
It's worth pointing out that Maimonides was engaging in wishful thinking in his feeble attempts to de-anthropomorphize the God of the Hebrew Bible. He was letting Aristotle get in the way of p'shat - and not for the first time.
The Torah paints a very clear picture of God. I'm not saying that the Torah doesn't use metaphors for God. It does, just as it often uses metaphors about people. That was Biblical Hebrew. But to suggest that God can't change his mind or get angry is contrary to the P'shat of the Torah.
God is actually seen by Moses and the elders. Literally seen. Underneath his feet is a sapphire floor. This isn't midrash... it's basic Bible (Ex. 24:10, JP).
The Rambam was heavily influenced by his own common sense, as well as philosophist literature. But he's wrong about the nature of the Biblical God.
The Rambam would also have you believe that God does not feel anything. But the Hebrew Bible clearly depicts a very sensual God. If you believe what the Bible says, God is indeed very upset by people, can be argued down by them, and is a sensitive being that can be appeased by smelling a sacrifice. He can even be seen by eye. Rambam basically denies these anthropomorphic ideas, but in doing so violates the p'shat of the Bible.
Yirmiahu,
"That even Maimonides restricts, serverely, when allegorization is permissible."
Sure - he's saying you can't if you don't have a better argument for it than the opposition. Why do you think this is so severe?
"And the science that he based that allegorical approach is no longer tenable."
And? The implication is that if Maimonides lived today and knew today's science, he would likely be even more allegorical in his approach.
CM,
"The Rambam was heavily influenced by his own common sense, as well as philosophist literature. But he's wrong about the nature of the Biblical God."
Heh, that's certainly what the rabbis at Montpellier thought.
>He was letting Aristotle get in the way of p'shat - and not for the first time.
You would have to then show that all literature (including the Talmud), explicitly sees God as having a figure
"And? The implication is that if Maimonides lived today and knew today's science, he would likely be even more allegorical in his approach."
Sorry for the delay. It's a great question/argument that I didn't feel I could do justice in a comment. Breifly while you may be right that Maimonides would take an alegorical approach today as well, I think that is pretty speculative. On the other hand we have a number of ideas from the Rambam that I better support a different approach in today's case.
I discuss them here http://machzikeihadas.blogspot.com/2008/10/guiding-principals-guide-for-perplexed.html and hope to elaborate on what that alternative is soon.
Post a Comment