Who wrote the Torah? Documentary Hypothesis info
Robert Kaiser
WHO WROTE THE TORAH? A quick intro to the Documentary Hypothesis
Part 1 - from the web site
http://www.exo.net/bluethread/whowrotetorah.htm
Our tradition is that Moses wrote (or received) the entire Torah.
However, scholars going back to the 2nd century CE, or for an example in
medieval times, Ibn Ezra in the 12th century, found troubling evidence
that Moses did not in fact write the Torah. For example, there are
references in the Torah to Moses in the third person, such as his being
modest, or naming Edomite kings (Gen. 36) that were known to have lived
after Moses died. [Friedman, p. 19.] Subsequent scholars found more and
more problems that suggested more than one source. Early in Exodus, for
instance, 6:3 (P) and 3:14 (E), it is stated that the personal name of
Yod-He-Vav-He was not employed prior to Moses. [Speiser, Genesis p. xxiii],
even though that name permeates the book of Genesis.
Starting with Spinoza in the 17th cent, and flourishing with German
scholarship in the mid-19th century, analysis grew to the point where,
as Speiser says in his introduction to the Anchor Bible Genesis, "the
conclusion which virtually all modern scholars are willing to accept,
is that the Pentateuch was in reality a composite work, the product of
many hands and periods." [Speiser, Genesis p.xxiii]
As with any theory, its acceptance rests on its ability to explain
various problems and discrepancies in the text. Although today many points
remain in dispute within this school of thought, those disputes are about
which source is responsible for a given passage and what were the influences
on that source, and are not about whether or not there were different
sources or what were the principal characteristics and concerns of each
source.
As a gross oversimplification of that perspective, analysis of
the Torah reveals four separate strands or sources, each with its own
vocabulary, its own approach and concerns. Those four sources are:
Part 2 - Adapted from Baruch Levine's JPS Torah commentary.
* J - Jahweh, Jehovah
The name is taken from the name of God YHVH used exclusively by this
sources. The letter 'J' comes from the (erroneous) German Christian
rendering of Yod-He-Vav-He as Jehovah. It generally presents humans in
various situations in which their actions and words convey the meaning.
This source emerged from Judah, the southern Kingdom. It emerged after the
civil war in which Israel split into two kingdoms; Israel in the north, and
Judea in the south.
* E - Elohim, Elohist
Writings in which the God of Israel is referred to by the name Elohim.
This collection is presumed to have emerged from the northern kingdom of
Israel, It is generally more concerned with general stories than
individuals.
At some time in pre-exilic history around 650 BCE, J and E were combined by
a Judean editors.
* P - Priestly writings, Priesterschrift
Focuses on the formal relations between God and society, including the
genealogies which document the chain of transmission of God's message and
authority from Creation to Moses. "P" uses both Elohim and El Shaddai and
names of God.
The book of Leviticus is solely composed of P. Leviticus emerged from
centers of priestly administration in biblical Israel such as Jerusalem. It
is linked by language and subject matter to other priestly materials
preserved in other books of the Torah.
History and Development of P:
Deuteronomy ordains that all sacrificial worship and cultic activity be
conducted at the one central Temple in Jerusalem. Such activities would be
illegitimate if carried out at any other site. Deuteronomy, therefore,
announces a new pattern of worship. In some way this doctrine is
historically related to the edict of Josiah, king od Judah, issued in 622
BCE, and reported in 2 Kings 22-23. And so the question arises: Is the
cultic legislation of Leviticus based on this Deuteronomic doctrine of
centralized worship?
Some scholars, including Julius Wellhausen in the 19th century,
interpretetd Lev.17 as indirectly endorsing the doctrine of cult
centralization. More recently, H. L. Ginsberg has argued that the festival
legislation of Lev.23 represents a response to the same Deuteronomic
doctrine of centralized worship. Ginsberg, noting similarities of diction
and doctribe between Hosea and Deuteronomy, traces the origin of the law of
cult centralization (in Deut.) to the northern kingdom of Israel, in the
period before the fall of Israel to the Assyrians in 721 BCE. He proposes
that Deuteronomic writings (though not the entire book of Deuteronomy) were
then transmitted to Judah [the southern kingdom] and its capitol, Jerusalem.
These ideas then influenced Judea's King Hezekiah, who endeavored to do
away with the high places (2 Kings 18:4). This effort apparently failed.
he was followed by King Manasseh. In the late 7th century BCE, King Josiah
destroyed the major cult sites in use at the time and altered the role of
the priesthood. In this view, P developed shortly thereafter in the early
6th century BCE.
Thus if Leviticus mirrors the doctrine of Deuteronomy, then it is most
likely a product of the age of Josiah at the earliest, at least in its broad
outline. However, other scholars dispute this historical reconstructiont.
They regard the priestly legislation of Leviticus as coming from an earlier
time, before Josiah and before the Deuteronomic writings. Foremost among
these scholars is Yehezkel Kaufmann. He argues that the priestly
literature of the Torah emerged at an earlier period; more recent scholars
who follow this chronology, date P to the early 7th century BCE.
Scholars also note many similarities in content and style between P and
Ezekiel. Ezekiel, the priest-prophet, was a major spokesman of the priestly
school of Jerusalem. he lived in the time of the destruction of the First
Temple and went into exile to Babylonia. Some scholars, followin Kaufmann
and others, maintain that P served as a source for Ezekiel. However, others
suspect the reverse - that Ezekiel intoduced those themes that found their
way into P. Ginsberg proposes that themes prominent in the Epilogue to
Lev.26 were drawn from Ezekiel. Historically this would mean that , at the
very least, parts of this were written well into the Babylonian exile, 6th
century BCE.
So when was the P literature developed ? The most prudent view would
approximate that of the late E. A. Speiser: that priestly law and
literature took form over a protracted period of time and that it would be
inaccurate to assign all of their contents to a single period of ancient
history. This approach helps to explain the presence of some relatively
early material in Leviticus, while at the same time allowing for the
inclusion of exilic and post-exilic creativity.
* D - Dtr, Deuteronomist
This is the source of the book of Deuteronomy, and likely in addition, the
books of Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel and I and II Kings. Generally
speaking, the Deuteronomist emphasizes centralization of worship and
governance in Jerusalem.
* R - Redactor
The documentary hypothesis also uses the shorthand "R" for the redactor
or editor who brought together the J, E, P and Dtr material into a single
set of writings we know as the Torah.
It should be noted that the use of each of these alphabetical
short-hand letters does not necessarily imply that there was a single
individual who wrote all of any given strand of material, but rather there
was a like-minded group that existed over time with shared perspectives and
traditions. The abandonment of Mosaic authorship does not require a denial
of divine content in the Torah. It is not difficult to believe that the
sources were divinely inspired, notwithstanding that they often had other
agendas as well.
Are such approaches truly testable?
------------------------------------
Contrary to popular belief, the Documentary hypothesis does make some
testable predictions that can be verified. For an in-depth illustration of
this, please see the following journal article or book:
"An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis" by Jeffrey H.
Tigay _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol.94, No.3 Sept. 1975,
pages 329-342.
"Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism" Edited by Jeffrey Tigay
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986
Sources for further info:
-------------------------
Richard Elliot Friedman "Who Wrote the Bible?" Harper and Row
Revised edition 1996
Baruch Halpern "The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History"
Harper, 1988
Baruch Levine "The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus" , JPS, 1989
p.xxi-xxx
E.A. Speiser "Genesis - Anchor Bible series" Doubleday 1965
Read the first 50 pages.
"Sources of the Pentateuch. Texts, Introductions, Annotations."
Campbell, A. F., and M. A. O'Brien (1993). Published by Fortress,
Minneapolis, Minn. Collects the texts of the Priestly, Yahwist,
and Elohist sources in separate chapters, with notes and explanation;
a convenient way to view the source texts as continuous narratives.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
******************************************************************
E-mail me for info on the comprehensive on-line Jewish History
Timeline...or Conservative Judaism...or the Jewish Theology FAQs
....or classic 8-bit home videogames, especially the Odyssey^2!
******************************************************************
Geek Code d H- S !g p1 au a- w+ V+ c+ U- E- N++ W V+ po Y+ t++
5+++ R G' tv+ b++ B-- e++++ u+ f+ r h+ y+
Yiddishkeit Code S+ SC Fa1,l NG+ M K+ H+ tI AT+ SY+,A Te+/Te++
P+ FO++= D+ Tz+ E+ L- Am hc I+ Ha+ FH- IPL T- JE+
David Goldman
>scholarship in the mid-19th century, analysis grew to the point where,
>as Speiser says in his introduction to the Anchor Bible Genesis, "the
>conclusion which virtually all modern scholars are willing to accept,
>is that the Pentateuch was in reality a composite work, the product of
>many hands and periods." [Speiser, Genesis p.xxiii]
Oh yeah, the greatest sage of them all, Benedict Spinoza, the first of
the meshugena heretics in the modern era. No one can counter the
"wisdom" and "traditions" of this mighty sage. Spinoza was a dreamer,
and a lousy one at that.
We have been through this stupid superficial hypothesis many times.
David Goldman
>However, scholars going back to the 2nd century CE, or for an example in
>medieval times, Ibn Ezra in the 12th century, found troubling evidence
>that Moses did not in fact write the Torah.
This is a contemptible lie. This insults the name of Ibn Ezra, who
never said any such thing.
For example, there are
>references in the Torah to Moses in the third person, such as his being
>modest, or naming Edomite kings (Gen. 36) that were known to have lived
>after Moses died. [Friedman, p. 19.] Subsequent scholars found more and
>more problems that suggested more than one source. Early in Exodus, for
>instance, 6:3 (P) and 3:14 (E), it is stated that the personal name of
>Yod-He-Vav-He was not employed prior to Moses. [Speiser, Genesis p. xxiii],
>even though that name permeates the book of Genesis.
What do you mean "For example"? This is building sandcastles or houses
out of cards. Typical of the 19th century solid-state materialist
heretics to misinterpret and misrepresent.
David Goldman
>the Torah reveals four separate strands or sources, each with its own
>vocabulary, its own approach and concerns. Those four sources are:
Baloney. Anyone can invent silly hypotheses. Analysis shmanalysis. Do
you need the works of Rabbi Weismandl and his successors again?
Imagine someone taking a book, any book, lehavdil elef alfay havdalos,
and sitting down and saying the following;
1) Oh, here and here the author refers to G-d as Daddy.
2) Here and here the author refers to G-d as Papa.
3) Here and here the author refers to G-d as Father.
Must have been written by three people. How illogical and superficial.
David Goldman
>-------------------------
>Richard Elliot Friedman "Who Wrote the Bible?" Harper and Row
>Revised edition 1996
>Baruch Halpern "The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History"
>Harper, 1988
>Baruch Levine "The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus" , JPS, 1989
>p.xxi-xxx
>E.A. Speiser "Genesis - Anchor Bible series" Doubleday 1965
>Read the first 50 pages.
>"Sources of the Pentateuch. Texts, Introductions, Annotations."
>Campbell, A. F., and M. A. O'Brien (1993). Published by Fortress,
>Minneapolis, Minn. Collects the texts of the Priestly, Yahwist,
>and Elohist sources in separate chapters, with notes and explanation;
>a convenient way to view the source texts as continuous narratives.
Why don't you at least cite the wacky German enlightenment worshipper
cultists who invented these nonsensical and idiotic and superficial
theories?
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> WHO WROTE THE TORAH? A quick intro to the Documentary Hypothesis
>
> Part 1 - from the web site
> http://www.exo.net/bluethread/whowrotetorah.htm
>
>
> Our tradition is that Moses wrote (or received) the entire Torah.
> However, scholars going back to the 2nd century CE, or for an example in
> medieval times, Ibn Ezra in the 12th century, found troubling evidence
Sigh ...
You mean the "bizarre" Conservative distortion of what the Ibn Ezra wrote. Too
bad you ignorami never bothered to read his Introduction to the Torah.
> that Moses did not in fact write the Torah. For example, there are
> references in the Torah to Moses in the third person, such as his being
> modest, or naming Edomite kings (Gen. 36) that were known to have lived
> after Moses died. [Friedman, p. 19.] Subsequent scholars found more and
> more problems that suggested more than one source. Early in Exodus, for
> instance, 6:3 (P) and 3:14 (E), it is stated that the personal name of
> Yod-He-Vav-He was not employed prior to Moses. [Speiser, Genesis p. xxiii],
> even though that name permeates the book of Genesis.
Too bad this ignoramus idiot Speiser didn't bother to read Rashi on this verse
who writes: "'LO HODAHTI' EIN KTIV KAHN ELAH 'LO NODAHTI' ". [it's not written
'I didn't not (actively) make my name known' but (the passive tense) 'my name
was not known/understood'].
Rest of this horribly shoddy "scholarship" deleted.
>
> Starting with Spinoza in the 17th cent, and flourishing with German
> scholarship in the mid-19th century, analysis grew to the point where,
> as Speiser says in his introduction to the Anchor Bible Genesis, "the
> conclusion which virtually all modern scholars are willing to accept,
> is that the Pentateuch was in reality a composite work, the product of
> many hands and periods." [Speiser, Genesis p.xxiii]
>
Yawn :-)
> As with any theory, its acceptance rests on its ability to explain
> various problems and discrepancies in the text. Although today many points
> remain in dispute within this school of thought, those disputes are about
> which source is responsible for a given passage and what were the influences
> on that source, and are not about whether or not there were different
> sources or what were the principal characteristics and concerns of each
> source.
But God-forbid for anyone of these *scholars* to check the {dirty word coming
up folks) JEWISH sources for explanations.
>
> As a gross oversimplification of that perspective, analysis of
> the Torah reveals four separate strands or sources, each with its own
> vocabulary, its own approach and concerns. Those four sources are:
>
>
> Part 2 - Adapted from Baruch Levine's JPS Torah commentary.
>
>
Yawn :-)
> * J - Jahweh, Jehovah
>
> The name is taken from the name of God YHVH used exclusively by this
> sources. The letter 'J' comes from the (erroneous) German Christian
> rendering of Yod-He-Vav-He as Jehovah. It generally presents humans in
> various situations in which their actions and words convey the meaning.
> This source emerged from Judah, the southern Kingdom. It emerged after the
> civil war in which Israel split into two kingdoms; Israel in the north, and
> Judea in the south.
>
>
Yawn :-)
> * E - Elohim, Elohist
>
> Writings in which the God of Israel is referred to by the name Elohim.
> This collection is presumed to have emerged from the northern kingdom of
> Israel, It is generally more concerned with general stories than
> individuals.
You know, if I ever had a med student or a grad student come up with such
a presposterous NAARISHKEIT I would have them thrown out of school.
>
> At some time in pre-exilic history around 650 BCE, J and E were combined by
> a Judean editors.
>
>
Yawn :-)
> * P - Priestly writings, Priesterschrift
>
> Focuses on the formal relations between God and society, including the
> genealogies which document the chain of transmission of God's message and
> authority from Creation to Moses. "P" uses both Elohim and El Shaddai and
> names of God.
>
> The book of Leviticus is solely composed of P. Leviticus emerged from
> centers of priestly administration in biblical Israel such as Jerusalem. It
> is linked by language and subject matter to other priestly materials
> preserved in other books of the Torah.
>
Yawn :-)
> History and Development of P:
>
> Deuteronomy ordains that all sacrificial worship and cultic activity be
> conducted at the one central Temple in Jerusalem. Such activities would be
> illegitimate if carried out at any other site. Deuteronomy, therefore,
> announces a new pattern of worship. In some way this doctrine is
> historically related to the edict of Josiah, king od Judah, issued in 622
> BCE, and reported in 2 Kings 22-23. And so the question arises: Is the
> cultic legislation of Leviticus based on this Deuteronomic doctrine of
> centralized worship?
>
> Some scholars, including Julius Wellhausen in the 19th century,
Welhausen, the rabidly antisemitic Christian theologian ? How about quoting
the great Bible scholar Adolf Hitler ? :-)
> interpretetd Lev.17 as indirectly endorsing the doctrine of cult
> centralization. More recently, H. L. Ginsberg has argued that the festival
> legislation of Lev.23 represents a response to the same Deuteronomic
> doctrine of centralized worship. Ginsberg, noting similarities of diction
> and doctribe between Hosea and Deuteronomy, traces the origin of the law of
> cult centralization (in Deut.) to the northern kingdom of Israel, in the
> period before the fall of Israel to the Assyrians in 721 BCE. He proposes
> that Deuteronomic writings (though not the entire book of Deuteronomy) were
> then transmitted to Judah [the southern kingdom] and its capitol, Jerusalem.
> These ideas then influenced Judea's King Hezekiah, who endeavored to do
> away with the high places (2 Kings 18:4). This effort apparently failed.
> he was followed by King Manasseh. In the late 7th century BCE, King Josiah
> destroyed the major cult sites in use at the time and altered the role of
> the priesthood. In this view, P developed shortly thereafter in the early
> 6th century BCE.
>
This stupidity is almost as comical as reading about psychoanalytic theories.
> Thus if Leviticus mirrors the doctrine of Deuteronomy, then it is most
> likely a product of the age of Josiah at the earliest, at least in its broad
> outline. However, other scholars dispute this historical reconstructiont.
> They regard the priestly legislation of Leviticus as coming from an earlier
> time, before Josiah and before the Deuteronomic writings. Foremost among
> these scholars is Yehezkel Kaufmann. He argues that the priestly
> literature of the Torah emerged at an earlier period; more recent scholars
> who follow this chronology, date P to the early 7th century BCE.
Yawn :-)
>
> Scholars also note many similarities in content and style between P and
> Ezekiel. Ezekiel, the priest-prophet, was a major spokesman of the priestly
> school of Jerusalem. he lived in the time of the destruction of the First
> Temple and went into exile to Babylonia. Some scholars, followin Kaufmann
> and others, maintain that P served as a source for Ezekiel. However, others
> suspect the reverse - that Ezekiel intoduced those themes that found their
> way into P. Ginsberg proposes that themes prominent in the Epilogue to
> Lev.26 were drawn from Ezekiel. Historically this would mean that , at the
> very least, parts of this were written well into the Babylonian exile, 6th
> century BCE.
>
> So when was the P literature developed ? The most prudent view would
> approximate that of the late E. A. Speiser: that priestly law and
> literature took form over a protracted period of time and that it would be
> inaccurate to assign all of their contents to a single period of ancient
> history. This approach helps to explain the presence of some relatively
> early material in Leviticus, while at the same time allowing for the
> inclusion of exilic and post-exilic creativity.
>
>
>
Bobo: how could you leave out the following fragments:
T, O, I, L, E. T, P, A, P, E, and R ???? Have you no academic integrity ? :-)
>
> * D - Dtr, Deuteronomist
>
> This is the source of the book of Deuteronomy, and likely in addition, the
> books of Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel and I and II Kings. Generally
> speaking, the Deuteronomist emphasizes centralization of worship and
> governance in Jerusalem.
>
>
>
Double yawn ;-)
> * R - Redactor
>
> The documentary hypothesis also uses the shorthand "R" for the redactor
> or editor who brought together the J, E, P and Dtr material into a single
> set of writings we know as the Torah.
>
> It should be noted that the use of each of these alphabetical
> short-hand letters does not necessarily imply that there was a single
> individual who wrote all of any given strand of material, but rather there
> was a like-minded group that existed over time with shared perspectives and
> traditions. The abandonment of Mosaic authorship does not require a denial
> of divine content in the Torah. It is not difficult to believe that the
> sources were divinely inspired, notwithstanding that they often had other
> agendas as well.
>
>
>
> Are such approaches truly testable?
> ------------------------------------
> Contrary to popular belief, the Documentary hypothesis does make some
> testable predictions that can be verified. For an in-depth illustration of
> this, please see the following journal article or book:
>
> "An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis" by Jeffrey H.
> Tigay _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol.94, No.3 Sept. 1975,
> pages 329-342.
>
Yawn :-)
> "Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism" Edited by Jeffrey Tigay
> Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986
>
>
>
"Who wrote this stupidity ?" by Robert Kaiser, SOC.CULTURE.JEWISH, 1998:
August 31.
> Sources for further info:
> -------------------------
> Richard Elliot Friedman "Who Wrote the Bible?" Harper and Row
> Revised edition 1996
>
> Baruch Halpern "The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History"
> Harper, 1988
>
> Baruch Levine "The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus" , JPS, 1989
> p.xxi-xxx
>
> E.A. Speiser "Genesis - Anchor Bible series" Doubleday 1965
> Read the first 50 pages.
>
> "Sources of the Pentateuch. Texts, Introductions, Annotations."
> Campbell, A. F., and M. A. O'Brien (1993). Published by Fortress,
> Minneapolis, Minn. Collects the texts of the Priestly, Yahwist,
> and Elohist sources in separate chapters, with notes and explanation;
> a convenient way to view the source texts as continuous narratives.
>
How about reading Rashi, Ramban, Sforno, Ibn Ezra, Baalei Tosafot, Or Hachaim,
the Midrashic literature (Rabbah and Tanchuma) ? When you master this, THEN
you can start inventing your own religion.
Josh
Jacob Love
>Sigh ...
Indeed, Josh. It appears that you are becoming the chief spokesperson
for Know-Nothingism in this NewsGroup.
>You mean the "bizarre" Conservative distortion of what the Ibn Ezra wrote. Too
>bad you ignorami never bothered to read his Introduction to the Torah.
Whatever Robert may have been doing or not doing, the last time I
particiated in a discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis in this
group, I posted some fairly comprehensive sections of precisely that
document. As I have frequently said, to expect that a religious
commentator living in the Middle Ages (when a person's livelihood and
life could be threatened by religious zealots) would have the same
ability to speak out as we are accustomed to today is the height of
absurdity. To expect that such a person's intellectual outlook, with so
little in the way of other bodies of scholarship to rely on, would
greatly resemble the precise framework of ideas we find today is even
more absurd. Ibn Ezra wrote in riddles and made obscure allusions
because he feared for his life. Had he fully supported the notions
you think to be correct, what did he have to fear?
>Too bad this ignoramus idiot Speiser didn't bother to read Rashi on this verse
>who writes: "'LO HODAHTI' EIN KTIV KAHN ELAH 'LO NODAHTI' ". [it's not written
>'I didn't not (actively) make my name known' but (the passive tense) 'my name
>was not known/understood'].
>
>Rest of this horribly shoddy "scholarship" deleted.
Well, I guess that really settles it, Josh. As a physician Josh, if
someone approaches you on the one hand with scientific evidence that a
prescribed therapy may (or may not) lead to an extension of life and on
the other that he has a cure vouched for by someone who heard it from
his zadie that it's totally effective and you have to pick just one,
which one are you going to pick? Let me know so that I can make sure
when I visit your area that I know whether its safe to come to your
practice.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Robert Kaiser
jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) says:
>>You mean the "bizarre" Conservative distortion of what the Ibn Ezra wrote. Too
>>bad you ignorami never bothered to read his Introduction to the Torah.
>Whatever Robert may have been doing or not doing, the last time I
>particiated in a discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis in this
>group, I posted some fairly comprehensive sections of precisely that
>document.
Jacob, Josh has been on one one of his longest and most hateful
rants yet. A few recent post of his even threatened to initiate some
sort of action against Rabbi Lapidus; and in a Yehuda Silver-style-rant
he began screaming about higher biblical criticism as "T-O-I-L-E-T-P-A-
P-E-R". He's just off his rocker. As such, I would hope you don't
accept his claims about what I wrote.
In fact, I did not post any Conservative thoughts on Ibn Ezra.
Rather, I was discussing Ibn Ezra's own quotes, and the discussion of
them by his supercommentator, Yosef Bonfils. So depiste Josh's
irrational rants, I invite you to read what I actually wrote, reproduced
below.
-----
No errors. The facts is that Abraham Ibn-Ezra [Spain and North
Africa, 1089-1164 CE] alludes to this several times in his commentary on
the Torah. One example is his comment on Genesis 12:6. Here the Torah
has described how the Patriarch Abraham arrived in Canaan from Mesopotamia,
and traversed the country in a symbolic act of taking possession, despite
the fact that at that time "the Canaanite was then in the land".
Ibn-Ezra comments:
'The Canaanite was then in the land' - possibly the land had just
been conquered by the Canaanite. If this interpretation is
incorrect, there is a more correct esoteric one - but it would be
prudent to leave it unsaid".
What Ibn-Ezra implies, his glossator, Rabbi Yosef Bonfils [Eretz-
Israel, fifteenth century CE] makes explicit:
"How can [the Torah] here say 'then' with its connotation that the
Canaanite was then in the land but now is not, if Moses wrote the
Torah and in his day the land was indeed possessed by the Canaanites?
Obviously, the word 'then' was written at a time when the Canaanite
was no longer in the land, and we know that they were only
dislodged subsequent to Moses' death... Thus it would seem that
Moses did not write this word here, but Joshua or some other prophet
wrote it. Since we believe in the prophetic tradition, what possible
difference can it make whether Moses wrote this or some other
prophet did, since the words of all of them are true and prophetic? "
---
and in a separate post I wrote
---
>Therefore, if you think the text implies that it was written after the
>Canaanites left, you must have misunderstood. This is IE's whole reason
>for commenting -- because IT WAS INCONCIEVABLE TO HIM THAT THE TORAH
>WAS WRITTEN AT A LATER DATE.
This is a textbook example of how Orthodox Judaism can only
prove its premises through circular reasoning. Micha assumes that no
matter what Ibn Ezra actually says, Ibn Ezra must accept that every
word of the Torah was written by Moses. And then using this assumption,
Micha proves that Ibn Ezra accepts that every word of the Torah was
written by Moses! A perfect textbook example of circular reasoning.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
The Origin of Halakha (Jewish law) and the Torah
"Within the study of Halakhah, there are essentially two formats
of presentation - Midrash and Mishnah. I am not referring to specific
works; rather types of presentation. Indeed, there are some Mishnayot -
e.g. Bikkurim 1:2 - which are Midrashic in style.
The term "Mishnah" refers to any presentation which is apodictic - in
which the law is presented without reference to the source, be it
textual or reasoned, for that law.
"Midrash", on the other hand, is textually-based teachings, in which
the specific law is presented with its Scriptural basis and the method
of derivation.
There is a debate among scholars of the Halakhic process as to the
chronology of the development of these two modes - did "Mishnah" come
before "Midrash" or vice-versa? If we accept the antecedence of
"Midrash", that may mean that Halakhot were actually derived from the
text via the various rules of exegesis (e.g. R. Yishma'el's 13 rules of
interpretation). That means that the written Torah is the foundation of
Halakhah and the source for finding new Halakhic teachings. There are
quite a number of Talmudic sources which support this position
The other position, that which posits that Midrash Halakhah was
a later development in the evolution of Halakhic teaching, assumes a
different posture with regards to the source of Halakhah. In this scenario,
Halakhah was originally an oral transmission, divorced from the text (thus
explaining the opening line in Mishnah Avot). In later times, for reasons
of education or polemics, a "bridge" was formed between text and Halakhah.
There are, again, many sources in the Talmud which support this position
- such as the use of Asmakhta (a scriptural association which comes to
support a preexistent law)."
Yitzchak Etshalom
http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5757/bm/dt.57.4.01.html
The Origin of the Torah
-------------------------
Modern critical scholars divide the Pentateuch into distinct
components and constituent strata of tradition, identifying areas of
unevenness in the scriptural tradition, which point to several interwoven
documents rather than one seamless whole. Although the conclusions reached
by such critical scholarship are still matters of dispute, the
inconsistencies identified stand clearly before us and pose a serious
challenge to the believer in divine revelation. How can a text marred
by contradiction be the legacy of Sinai? How can there be reverence for
Holy Scriptures that show signs of human intervention?
Answers?
-------------
David Weiss Halivni, former talmud professor at JTS, and current
Rosh Yeshiva of the UTJ's Metivta - explores these questions. This is not
done by disputing critical evidence, nor by defending at all costs the
absolute integrity of the Pentateuchal words, but rather by accepting the
inconsistencies of the text as such and asking how this text might yet
be a divine legacy. Halivni attempts to answer these articulates a
talmudic tradition according to which Ezra received, restored and
repaired a "maculate" [imperfect] Torah, thereby initiating the tradition
of oral Torah, torah she b'chtav, to which the rabbinic sages contribute.
Commenting on Talmudic treatments of Shimon haTsaddik and on related texts,
Halivni describes the evolutionary development of the oral Torah
throughout rabbinic history.
"Revelation Restored : Divine Writ and Critical Responses"
David Weiss Halivni. Hardcover, 128 pages
Published by Westview Press, 1997
"Peshat and Derash : Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis"
David Weiss Halivni. Available in soft or hardback 272 pages
Published by Oxford University Press, 1998
Shalom,
Robert
Micha Berger
: Rather, I was discussing Ibn Ezra's own quotes, and the discussion of
: them by his supercommentator, Yosef Bonfils.
No, you were discussing what non-traditionalist sources wanted to read between
the lines of these two works, IGNORING the fact that the IE actually denies
their conculsion in clear text.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5908 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 31-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
kai...@biosys.net (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
> Jacob, Josh has been on one one of his longest and most hateful
> rants yet. A few recent post of his even threatened to initiate some
> sort of action against Rabbi Lapidus;
Robert, please, I can take care of Josh myself. If Josh does succeed in
hawling me before some panel, I can always start a flamewar against
soc.culture.afghanistan as a diversion.
> and in a Yehuda Silver-style-rant
> he began screaming about higher biblical criticism as "T-O-I-L-E-T-P-A-
> P-E-R".
That is NOT a YS-style-rant! To qualify, one needs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why don't we just call a moratorium on YS, since he is no longer posting.
> He's just off his rocker. As such, I would hope you don't
> accept his claims about what I wrote.
And who on the Internet is *not* off his/her rocker? Didn't you see that
Carnegie-Mellon study reported in yesterday's papers that implicates 'net use
as a cause of depression?
--
Jay S. Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET>
http://members.tripod.com/~jlapidus/index.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Robert Kaiser
8/31/98 Who Wrote the Torah? An introduction to higher Biblical criticism.
- Revised -
Adapted and Edited from numerous sources by Robert D. Kaiser
According to traditional Jewish historiography, Moses received the
entire Torah as a quotation from God, which he faithfully wrote down and
transmitted. These five books were then said to have been transmitted with
almost perfect clarity for the next 3,300 years, so that the text of the
Torah that we have today is essentially identical (plus or minus a few
scribal errors) to the actual text that Moses wrote.
However, this is not what our sages always believed. In fact, we have
no proof that Jews ever held maximal versions of this belief until Mishnaic
times, over a thousand years later than the time of Moses himself. Note
that the Torah itself makes no such claims. As JTS theology professor
Rabbi Neil Gillman points out:
"In fact the Torah itself never claims that God spoke all of the words
of the Torah to the Jewish people. There is no record in the Torah
itself, that God spoke the Book of Genesis to Israel as a whole. True, God
speaks within the narrative to Adam and Eve, to Cain, to Noah, later to
Abraham, Isaac and to Jacob, and in the first chapters of the Book of
Exodus to Moses. Throughout this material, God is portrayed as a character
within the story who speaks to other characters within the story, but the
story itself as a whole is never acknowledged to have been narrated by God.
In fact, the first reference we have to God instructing the Israelite
people as a whole is at the beginning of Exodus 12, the chapter in which
God instructs Moses to tell the people to bring the Passover sacrifice in
preparation for their exodus from Egypt.
So despite [the Orthodox] claim that all of the words of the Torah, or
at least of the Humash [Five books of Moses] were dictated by God to
Israel, the Torah itself makes no such claim. Further on the issue of
Moses' writing down of the Torah, there are only four references in the
Humash to Moses writing anything:
Exodus 24:4 probably refers to the law code in Exodus 20 to 23, the code
explicitly associated with the Sinai Revelation. Exodus 34:28 refers only
to the Ten Commandments. Deuteronomy 31:9 refers possibly to the entire
book of Deuteronomy or more likely to part of it. And finally Deuteronomy
31:22 clearly refers to the song that Moses sang before his death which is
recorded in Deuteronomy 32. If we confine ourselves to the text of the
Humash itself then most of the writing down of this text remains
unaccounted for.
Thus, it is not until we get to the time of the Mishna, some 1,500 years
after the time of Moses, that it was accepted by most Jews that Moses wrote
the Torah under divine guidance. Even at this stage, there was no
insistence that every word was dictated by God, and that every word of the
present text was written by Moses himself. It took many more years for the
more orthodox view to assert itself enough to stamp out all other points of
view.
However, individual rabbis throughout Jewish history pointed out that
the truth could not be so simple. For instance, Rabbi Judah ben Ilai held
that the final verses of the Torah must have been written by Joshua. [Bava
Batra 15a, Menachot 30a, and Sifrei 357.] Significantly, even the Midrash
still retains evidence of the redactional period in which Ezra redacted and
canonized the text of the Torah. A tradition is recorded which notes that
at this time (440 BCE) the text of the Torah was uncertain, and had to be
finalized by Ezra. Most radical is the implication that the entire Torah
was edited by him, and there were only ten places in the Torah where he was
still uncertain as to how to fix the text, so he left these ten places as
is, and marked them with special punctuation marks called the eser nekudot.
"Some give another reason why the dots are inserted. Ezra reasoned
thus: If Elijah comes and asks me "Why have you written these words?", I
shall answer "That is why I dotted the passages". And if Elijah says to
me "You have done well in having written these passages" then I shall erase
the dots over them. - Midrash Bemidbar Rabbah III.13 { See either of the
books in the references section by David Weiss-Halivni for a more detailed
discussion of this topic.}
In the middle ages, R. Ibn Ezra and others noted that there were several
places in the Torah which could not have been written in Moses's
lifetime.(1) In the twelfth century, the commentator R. Joseph ben Issac,
the Bekhor Shor, noted that a number of wilderness narratives in Exodus and
Numbers duplicate each other, in particular, the incidents of water from
the rock, and the stories about manna and the quail. He deduced from this
that both of these incidents actually happened once, but that parallel
traditions about these events eventually develope,d both of which made
their way into the Torah. In his word "The two are one!". (2) In the 15th
century, Rabbi Yosef Bonfils explicitly discussed the comments of Ibn Ezra,
noting: "Thus it would seem thatMoses did not write this word here, but
Joshua or some other prophet wrote it. Since we believe in the prophetic
tradition, what possible difference can it make whether Moses wrote this
or some other prophet did, since the words of all of them are true and
prophetic?"
"Starting with Spinoza in the 17th cent, and flourishing with German
scholarship in the mid-19th century, analysis grew to the point where, as
Speiser says in his introduction to the Anchor Bible Genesis, "the
conclusion which virtually all modern scholars are willing to accept, is
that the Pentateuch was in reality a composite work, the product of many
hands and periods." As with any theory, its acceptance rests on its
ability to explain various problems and discrepancies in the text. Although
today many points remain in dispute within this school of thought, those
disputes are about which source is responsible for a given passage and what
were the influences on that source, and are not about whether or not there
were different sources or what were the principal characteristics and
concerns of each source. As a gross over- simplification of that
perspective, analysis of the Torah reveals four separate strands or
sources, each with its own vocabulary, its own approach and concerns." (3)
These four sources are denoted J, E, P and D, and will shortly be
described in-depth. When modern biblical criticism blossomed in the 19th
century, it was initially supposed that these four sources denoted four
documents, each of which was perhaps written or at least redacted by one
person; Thus it was thought possible to simply unwind the current text of
the Torah into four discrete sources. While this is certainly true in
general, further study has indicated that these four sources are not
totally distinct. Rather, they are representative of four schools of
thought, which have similar origins in Israel’s past.. Gerland A. Larue
writes "Back of each of the four sources lie traditions that may have been
both oral and written. Some may have been preserved in the songs, ballads,
and folktales of different tribal groups, some in written form in
sanctuaries. The so-called 'documents' should not be considered as mutually
exclusive writings, completely independent of one another, but rather as a
continual stream of literature representing a pattern of progressive
interpretation of traditions and history." (4)
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Footnotes
----------
(1) For example, see Ibn Ezra's comments on Genesis 12:6, 22;14, Deut 1:2,
3:11 and 34:1,6. Ibn Ezra's comments were elucidated by Rabbi Joseph
Bonfils supercommentary on Ibn Ezra's work. For more information on this
topic, see the sources collected on this subject in Abraham Joshua
Heschel's "The Theology of Ancient Judaism" [Hebrew] (London: Soncino,
1965), pages 381-412.
(2) Torah commentary of R. Joseph ben Issac, the Bekhor Shor, 12th century
France. Described in the JPS Torah commentary on Numbers by Jacob Milgrom,
p.xxi., 449-450.
(3) Quoted from Rosemarie E. Falanga and Cy H. Silver, from the Bluethread
homepage.
http://www.exo.net/bluethread/whowrotetorah.htm
(4) Gerald A. Larue "Old Testament Life and Literature" 1968
Micha Berger
: So despite [the Orthodox] claim that all of the words of the Torah, or
: at least of the Humash [Five books of Moses] were dictated by God to
: Israel, the Torah itself makes no such claim.
Irrelevant to all but Sadducees and Karaites.
: Deuteronomy 31:9 refers possibly to the entire
: book of Deuteronomy or more likely to part of it.
More likely all 5 books. "And Moses wrote this Torah..." To say otherwise
requires assuming that the expression "this Torah" ever referred to less than
the entire corpus. There is no basis for such an assumption.
: Thus, it is not until we get to the time of the Mishna, some 1,500 years
: after the time of Moses, that it was accepted by most Jews that Moses wrote
: the Torah under divine guidance.
Actually, what your "evidence" would show (barring the above) is that the
earliest /record/ of Jews believing that Moses wrote the Torah under Divine
Guidance is the Mishnah, the earlies /recording/ of the Oral Torah. No great
surprise.
: Significantly, even the Midrash
: still retains evidence of the redactional period in which Ezra redacted and
: canonized the text of the Torah. A tradition is recorded which notes that
: at this time (440 BCE) the text of the Torah was uncertain, and had to be
: finalized by Ezra.
What the medrash says is that in the span of time between the fall of the
first commonwealth and the second, uncertainties entered as to the Torah (and
even in the alphabet!) and were /restored/ by Ezra and his contemporaries.
*Note the words "chazrum viyasdum" -- returned them and established them*.
Your source here was just plain lying.
BTW, what makes this latter-day source think he knows the medrash better than
the millenia of people who studied it and /did/ believe in the Sinaitic origin
of the Torah?
: In the middle ages, R. Ibn Ezra and others noted that there were several
: places in the Torah which could not have been written in Moses's
: lifetime.
No matter how many times you repeat this, it still isn't true. It's a
deduction some wishful DH believers made that is inconsistant with what he
says straight out in the text.
: the Bekhor Shor, ... In his word "The two are one!".
Of course, the Bichor Shor never says or implies that the story is recorded
twice because it was recorded by two different people. For that matter, DH
doesn't resolve the question any better than tradition does. You still have to
address why the redactor, who had no problem weaving even pieces of verses
together into one cohesive whole, wouldn't merge the two accounts.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5909 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 1-Sep-98)
David Goldman
> at least of the Humash [Five books of Moses] were dictated by God to
> Israel, the Torah itself makes no such claim. Further on the issue of
> Moses' writing down of the Torah, there are only four references in the
> Humash to Moses writing anything:
The Torah was given at Mt. Sinai as a long string of letters which
were divided into words as they went along, as commanded by G-d in the
Tent of Meeting. See Nachmanides instead of these jerks.
David Goldman
>no proof that Jews ever held maximal versions of this belief until Mishnaic
>times, over a thousand years later than the time of Moses himself. Note
>that the Torah itself makes no such claims. As JTS theology professor
>Rabbi Neil Gillman points out:
Robert, how long (ad masay) are you going to propogate the superficial
misiunterpretations and lies of the cultist ReformoConservatives?
David Goldman
>at this time (440 BCE) the text of the Torah was uncertain, and had to be
>finalized by Ezra. Most radical is the implication that the entire Torah
>was edited by him, and there were only ten places in the Torah where he was
>still uncertain as to how to fix the text, so he left these ten places as
>is, and marked them with special punctuation marks called the eser nekudot.
It was never uncertain to the Sanhedrin, though sectarian groups
offered their own little alternatives. Big deal.
David Goldman
>Joshua or some other prophet wrote it. Since we believe in the prophetic
>tradition, what possible difference can it make whether Moses wrote this
>or some other prophet did, since the words of all of them are true and
>prophetic?"
That is correct. Since both G-d and Moses, unlike Robert Kaiser and
his gurus, knew what they were doing.
kai...@biosys.net
> What the medrash says is that in the span of time between the fall of the
> first commonwealth and the second, uncertainties entered as to the Torah (and
> even in the alphabet!) and were /restored/ by Ezra and his contemporaries.
> *Note the words "chazrum viyasdum" -- returned them and established them*.
> Your source here was just plain lying.
> BTW, what makes this latter-day source think he knows the medrash better than
> the millenia of people who studied it and /did/ believe in the Sinaitic origin
> of the Torah?
Well, what makes you think you know midrash better than Rabbi Moshe
Feinstein? :) Ironically, he has exactly the same understanding of this
midrash as do Conservative Jews and biblical scholars! I bet you were
unawarw of this, but it is true. As I said before the Midrash still retains
evidence of the redactional period in which Ezra redacted and canonized
the text of the Torah. A tradition is recorded which notes that at this
time (440 BCE) the text of the Torah was uncertain, and had to be finalized
by Ezra.
"Some give another reason why the dots are inserted. Ezra
reasoned thus: If Elijah comes and asks me "Why have you written
these words?", I shall answer "That is why I dotted the passages".
And if Elijah says to me "You have done well in having written
these passages" then I shall erase the dots over them.
Midrash Bemidbar Rabbah III.13
As Rabbi Feinstein - and biblical scholars - understood, this is of
the greatest importance, because this passage has two major implications.
(1) The Torah we have today is not the exact same text that came from Moses.
(2) The Documentary theory, which is accepted by all Traditional (UTJ),
Conservative and Reform Jews, and all biblical schiolars and historians,
must be considered Jewishly legitimate, at least in general. Why? Because
this midrash illustrates that the Torah is composed of, at the very
least, three sources: (A) The original text from Moses, (B) Textual changes
that occured over the milennia between the time of Moses and Ezra, and
(C) The work of Ezra and his assistants.
This contradicts the viewpoint of Orthodox Judaism. One must thus
choose between statements such as this, or other parts of the tradition.
While some Orthodox Jews employ cognitive dissonance to simply ignore
the contradicton, many others are well aware of the problem.
One drastic solution is offered by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein: Concerning
this passage he states unequivocally that this midrash represents pure
unadulterated heresy in attributing to Ezra such excessive leeway with the
text of the Torah. See the discussion of this in David Weidd-Halivni's
"Peshat and Drash" p.141). he understands this exactly the way that
Conservative Jews do - so he condemns this midrash as a bunch of lies. A
rather convinient, if unconvincing, way of removing the problem.
As you can see, there are two major problems with this view: (A) This
means that the midrash, which Orthodox Jews view as divinely inspired, can
be so totally wrong as to contain pure heresy. If the inspired rabbis
who recorded our tradition got this so very wrong, then it stands to reason
that they may well have gotten other things wrong as well. Thus the tradtion
loses its claim to infallibillity that Orthodoxy relies upon. (B) More
important, this is not the only place our tradition records Ezra having a
role in redacting the Torah. There are many such places. If these places
are denied as well, that only reinforces point (A) above!
For examples and discussions, please refer to the following books by David
Weiss Halivini: "Peshat and Drash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic
Exgesis" [Oxford University Press, NY, 1991] and "Revelation Restored:
Divine Writ and Critical Acceptance" [Westview Press-Harper Collins, 1997]
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
>: Significantly, even the Midrash
>: still retains evidence of the redactional period in which Ezra redacted and
>: canonized the text of the Torah. A tradition is recorded which notes that
>: at this time (440 BCE) the text of the Torah was uncertain, and had to be
>: finalized by Ezra.
>What the medrash says is that in the span of time between the fall of the
>first commonwealth and the second, uncertainties entered as to the Torah (and
>even in the alphabet!) and were /restored/ by Ezra and his contemporaries.
>*Note the words "chazrum viyasdum" -- returned them and established them*.
>Your source here was just plain lying.
Micha, I would watch what you are saying if I were you. What
you wrote is pure libel. Rabbi David Weiss-Halivni is one of this
century's most respected Talmudic scholars, and a Rosh Yeshiva of a
rabbinical seminary. You show the highest arrogance, as well as ignorance,
by publicly libeling this man as a liar.
>: In the middle ages, R. Ibn Ezra and others noted that there were several
>: places in the Torah which could not have been written in Moses's
>: lifetime.
>
>No matter how many times you repeat this, it still isn't true. It's a
>deduction some wishful DH believers made that is inconsistant with what he
>says straight out in the text.
Now you lie about Rabbi Bonfils's commentary as well?!
Robert
David Goldman
>this passage he states unequivocally that this midrash represents pure
>unadulterated heresy in attributing to Ezra such excessive leeway with the
>text of the Torah. See the discussion of this in David Weidd-Halivni's
>"Peshat and Drash" p.141). he understands this exactly the way that
>Conservative Jews do - so he condemns this midrash as a bunch of lies. A
>rather convinient, if unconvincing, way of removing the problem.
It is rather amusing to see someone try to bring a proof to his
cockamamie ideas from people who do no share his ideas. Illogic. Was
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein one of those pharisees who secretly believed in
Conservative nonsense? Unlikely.
Robert Kaiser
One can say that the beginning of higher criticism of Jewish
religious texts began as far back as the Talmudic era. Consider that
"starting from the simple question of how to reconcile inconsistencies
in the text, and refusing to accept forced explanations to harmonize
them, scholars eventually arrived at the theory that the Torah was
composed of selections woven together from several, at times inconsistent,
sources dealing with the same and related subjects."
The reasoning followed in this kind of analysis is somewhat similar
to that of the talmduic sages and later rabbis who held that inconsistent
clauses and terminology in a single paragraph of the Mishna must have
originated with different sages, and who recognized that Moses could
not have written passages of the Torah that contain information
unavailable to him, such as the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which
describes his death and its aftermath."
[Jeffrey Tigay, JPS Torah Commentary on Deuteronomy, p. 502]
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
To learn more about the origin of the Torah....
Source criticism and the documentary hypothesis
http://puffin.creighton.edu/theo/simkins/handouts/SourceC.html
http://puffin.creighton.edu/theo/simkins/handouts/CompPent.html
The documentary hypothesis: evidence
http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/rs011/sess08/hisdochp.htm
http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/
Who wrote the Torah?
http://www.exo.net/bluethread/whowrotetorah.htm
The flood narratives in Genesis
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5993/flood.html
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
David Goldman
>religious texts began as far back as the Talmudic era. Consider that
>"starting from the simple question of how to reconcile inconsistencies
>in the text, and refusing to accept forced explanations to harmonize
>them, scholars eventually arrived at the theory that the Torah was
>composed of selections woven together from several, at times inconsistent,
>sources dealing with the same and related subjects."
Jeff Tigay doesn't know what he is talking about. Higher criticism
garbage developed a century and a half ago, unless you want to include
old man Mendelssohn from half a century before that. The sectarians
try hard to make their fantasies as legitimate as possible by
superimposing them onto the Sages. Nebuch.....
David Goldman
hypotheses. Hmmm.....
Harry Weiss
: To learn more about the origin of the Torah....
Is you showing that C does its learning from Xian sources proof of what
Rabbi Herzog Zt'l said. C and R and Xianity withouth the cross.
: Source criticism and the documentary hypothesis
: http://puffin.creighton.edu/theo/simkins/handouts/SourceC.html
: http://puffin.creighton.edu/theo/simkins/handouts/CompPent.html
: The documentary hypothesis: evidence
: http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/rs011/sess08/hisdochp.htm
: http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/
: Who wrote the Torah?
: http://www.exo.net/bluethread/whowrotetorah.htm
: The flood narratives in Genesis
: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5993/flood.html
: Shalom,
: Robert Kaiser
: ******************************************************************
: E-mail me for info on the comprehensive on-line Jewish History
: Timeline...or Conservative Judaism...or the Jewish Theology FAQs
: ....or classic 8-bit home videogames, especially the Odyssey^2!
: ******************************************************************
: Geek Code d H- S !g p1 au a- w+ V+ c+ U- E- N++ W V+ po Y+ t++
: 5+++ R G' tv+ b++ B-- e++++ u+ f+ r h+ y+
: Yiddishkeit Code S+ SC Fa1,l NG+ M K+ H+ tI AT+ SY+,A Te+/Te++
: P+ FO++= D+ Tz+ E+ L- Am hc I+ Ha+ FH- IPL T- JE+
--
K'Tivah V'chatima Tova
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
yafael
> The reasoning followed in this kind of analysis is somewhat similar
> to that of the talmduic sages and later rabbis who held that inconsistent
> clauses and terminology in a single paragraph of the Mishna must have
> originated with different sages, and who recognized that Moses could
> not have written passages of the Torah that contain information
> unavailable to him, such as the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which
> describes his death and its aftermath."
With the key difference that the Mishna is held to be a man-made
document, whereas the Torah is not. In fact, the same Sages who
recorded the Mishna also recorded the ruling that one who denies the
word-for-word transmission by God to Moses loses his share in the World
to Come. The only possible exception to this historically fundamental
article of Jewish faith is the opinion that the last 8 lines of Deut.
were transmitted word-for-word by God to Joshua instead of to Moses.
Most scholars (e.g. Rambam and Rashi) side with the talmudic opinion
that Moses received even these last lines, writing "tearfully" of his
death.
Rafael
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> One can say that the beginning of higher criticism of Jewish
> religious texts began as far back as the Talmudic era. Consider that
> "starting from the simple question of how to reconcile inconsistencies
> in the text, and refusing to accept forced explanations to harmonize
> them, scholars eventually arrived at the theory that the Torah was
> composed of selections woven together from several, at times inconsistent,
> sources dealing with the same and related subjects."
I'm sure that Mister Tigay can bring down the relevant references to
this absurd hypothesis. Apart from the last 8 lines of Dvarim, there are
no other sources.
BTW the Ramban explains "and the Canaanite was still in the land" (Gen. 12:6)
in a quite different manner than the Ibn Ezra. He explains that God hinted
to Abraham that his descendents would first conquer (Shechem) before they
would merit it and before the guilt (sins) of the dwellers of the land would
be full to warrant their being thrown out.
Josh
>
> The reasoning followed in this kind of analysis is somewhat similar
> to that of the talmduic sages and later rabbis who held that inconsistent
> clauses and terminology in a single paragraph of the Mishna must have
> originated with different sages, and who recognized that Moses could
> not have written passages of the Torah that contain information
> unavailable to him, such as the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which
> describes his death and its aftermath."
>
> [Jeffrey Tigay, JPS Torah Commentary on Deuteronomy, p. 502]
>
>
> Shalom,
>
> Robert Kaiser
>
>
Micha Berger
primary sources) the main evidence that lead people to accept DH is that many
stories are duplicated, and some are triplicated.
I ask again, why would a redactor do such a sloppy job? How does DH answer
the question of repetition -- does it make more sense to include them in a
redaction that in an original text?
Perhaps the one exception I could find was that of Noah's flood, where
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5993/flood.html asserts that the two
versions are interwoven to make one whole.
I should point out that there are reasons for this doubling that are suggested
from within tradition. For example, Rabbi YB Soloveitchik's dialectic between
Adam I and Adam II. According to him, the whole first book, and perhaps the
whole Torah, is about living with being both part (albeit pinacle) of creation
vs. a being capable of entertaining a covenant (albeit as a minor partner)
with G-d. Gen 1 presents Adam in the larger context of creation, Gen 2 talks
about the creation of man alone. Only Adam II has a dialogue with G-d,
struggles with living alone, etc... Notice that Adam I only relates to
E-lokim, the G-d of Law, and of Natural Law. Adam II sees G-d also as Y---.
The two self-perceptions yield two perceptions of G-d.
An article in "Jewish Thought" earlier this decade explains the Noah story as
an extension of this same idea.
All of which is an extension of the millenia old idea that E-lokim refers to
G-d when "sitting in the throne of justice", while Y-HVH is Him as a merciful
parent. They aren't reflections of different documents (and who then wrote
Genesis 2, where both names are used in conjunction?) but of man's differing
perceptions of G-d.
IOW, there's no reason to appeal to DH to resolve these "problems". Tradition
has said they're there for a reason well before DH existed.
BTW, as I've said before, an analysis of phrase frequencies between E&J show
no indication that they are different texts. While E&J tend to be naarative, P
tends to be prescriptive. It made such a comparison more subjective, however,
there is no indication P is a different author than E&J, in comparison to
results found in different kinds of works by the other authors. Check Dejanews,
I lost the periodical I had cited.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5910 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 2-Sep-98)
Herman Rubin
>: To learn more about the origin of the Torah....
>Is you showing that C does its learning from Xian sources proof of what
>Rabbi Herzog Zt'l said. C and R and Xianity withouth the cross.
Is there even one principle of Christian theology not accepted by the
Orthodox which is accepted by either Conservative or Reform Judaism?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Rafael
> Is there even one principle of Christian theology not accepted by the
> Orthodox which is accepted by either Conservative or Reform Judaism?
Actually, those Xians who believe in Torah MiSinai (the word-for-word
transmission of the Written Torah) share something with classical
Judaism that R and C do not. What R, C, and Xianity share is that they
all diverted from the normative rabbinic tradition (though some C
revisionists will try to deny this fact).
This wasn't Harry's point, however, which was that Robert placed a link
to a Xian web page in his post (nothing to get excited about).
Rafael
Jacob Love
Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Is you showing that C does its learning from Xian sources proof of what
>Rabbi Herzog Zt'l said. C and R and Xianity withouth the cross.
Actually, Harry, the issue is not Christianity versus Judaism here but
rather fundamentalism versus non-fundamentalism. Fundamentalist
Evangelical Christians have attitudes towards what they regard as
"Scripture" which are essentially identical to the ones you favor. One
significant difference between between fundamentalist Jews and
fundamentalist Christians on this particular point is which books are
included in the list. Non-fundamentalist Jews and non-fundamentalist
Christians have concluded that such notions are not consistent with the
evidence and view Scripture as the product of human beings, albeit
human beings who have been inspired by God. The issue of inspiration is
all that separates non-fundamentalists (whether Christian or Jewish)
from atheism; it is (of course) dismissed by fundamentalists, but as
with most religious issues, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
kai...@biosys.net
> According to Robert Kaiser's web citations ... the main evidence that
> lead people to accept DH is that many stories are duplicated, and some
> are triplicated.
No, not at all. Those are just one of the two lead indicators that led
people to the idea that there might have been more than one source. The
other lead indicator is that different parts of the Torah use different
names for God. Now, one can readily unwind much of the Torah into four
basic sources, denoted, J, E, P and D, based on which parts use which
names of God. But the fact that this can be done, by itself, doesn't
show anything. It was what was discovered _after_ this was done that
so was shocking:
Each of these sources tells an entirely separate and self-sufficient
set of stories. Each of them, by themselves, make perfect sense. And
each of them is aligned with a specific set of political and theological
views, and they all contrast sharply with each other. All of the 'E'
writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint of the Northern Kingdom
of Israel. All of the 'J' writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint
of people on the southern kingdom, Judea. The 'P' sources clearly emerge
as being the point of view of the priestly administration in biblical
Israel, etc.
If someone without an Orthodox Jewish background looks at the Torah
dispassionately and honestly, they will soon note that it is filled with
numerous contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled. If you assume
that the Torah is one story by one person (even God) then it also has to
be concluded that it is self-contradictory and full of gross errors.
Yes, there are many so-called harmonizations of the many textual
discrepancies, but these are often very illogical, and they always ignore
the peshat, the plain meaning of the text.
> I ask again, why would a redactor do such a sloppy job? How does DH answer
> the question of repetition -- does it make more sense to include them in a
> redaction that in an original text?
You are making an incorrect assumption - you are assuming that the
people who redacted the Torah made some sort of terrible, gross error by
including all these sources, and by not mergeing all the stories into one.
Why would you assume this? As a religious person, wouldn't you think
that all the info about our patriarchs, and our info about God, is of the
greatest importance? Why throw much of it away by trimming pieces?
Jews _loved_ their sacred literature - they were not looking to abandon it.
The Torah is a result of Ezra trying to preserve our people's legacy.
What modern scholars have shown is that the Torah is no different than
the rest of the Tanakh [Hebrew Bible]. Do you believe that God is real,
and that God can reveal His will to man? Do you believe that the records
of such encounters form the basis for the many books of the Bible? Well,
that is exactly it. The Bible already is accepted by religious Jews as
being divinely inspired, yet it is also accepted as having many sources.
The same is then true for the Torah.
> Perhaps the one exception I could find was that of Noah's flood, where
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5993/flood.html asserts that the two
> versions are interwoven to make one whole.
And _very_ clearly so. Some verses in the Torah claim that the flood
lasted 40 days and nights. Other verses say 150 days. Some verses say
that Noah should take two of each species, other say seven. Yes, hundreds
of years later people came up with all sorts of after-the-fact harmonizations
to try and make it look like there was just one story - but all of these
harmonizations totally deviate from the simple text of the Torah. Each one
of them makes numerous assumptions with no proof.
I'd reccomend reading Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" in
conjunction with Stephen Mitchell's "Genesis", which presents the source
stories of Genesis independently. If you have an open mind on the subject,
these books will blow you away.
David Goldman
> Each of these sources tells an entirely separate and self-sufficient
>set of stories. Each of them, by themselves, make perfect sense. And
>each of them is aligned with a specific set of political and theological
>views, and they all contrast sharply with each other. All of the 'E'
>writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint of the Northern Kingdom
>of Israel. All of the 'J' writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint
>of people on the southern kingdom, Judea. The 'P' sources clearly emerge
>as being the point of view of the priestly administration in biblical
>Israel, etc.
Such a genius. Your parents must be saying: Our Robby. Vos far a
genius!!
David Goldman
>dispassionately and honestly, they will soon note that it is filled with
>numerous contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled.
Let's go through a few of them specifically. Please remember to
examine the commentaries who knew a little more than you: Rashi,
Ramban, Malbim, Kli Yakar, the Targums, the Midrash, etc. etc.
Please lay off the cocaine. You'll do better that way.
David Goldman
>conjunction with Stephen Mitchell's "Genesis", which presents the source
>stories of Genesis independently. If you have an open mind on the subject,
>these books will blow you away.
Now if I have a choice between perusing Meam Loez and the original
sources such as Rashi, Ramban et al, or his holiness Stephen Mitchell
or his eminence Richard Friedman, I will choose the our traditional
commentators.......
Micha Berger
: Each of these sources tells an entirely separate and self-sufficient
: set of stories. Each of them, by themselves, make perfect sense.
Great, so don't redact at all -- keep four sets of scriptures. Worked for the
Gospels. The whole idea of redaction is to make a cohesive whole out of
multiple sources.
: All of the 'E'
: writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint of the Northern Kingdom
: of Israel. All of the 'J' writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint
: of people on the southern kingdom, Judea. The 'P' sources clearly emerge
: as being the point of view of the priestly administration in biblical
: Israel, etc.
Most of this is circular, as a lot of material's attribution is based on
theser assumptions. For example, P is defined by "priestly administration"
(thus the name "P"), so of course P fits such a view point. Similarly for much
of the E&J material as well.
: If someone without an Orthodox Jewish background looks at the Torah
: dispassionately and honestly, they will soon note that it is filled with
: numerous contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled.
What a denial of Oral Torah! Remember, "and so two verses that conflict one
another until a third verse comes and decides between them"? Even as far back
as R' Yishmael (and of course earlier) we realized that much of Oral Torah is
hinted at by those supposedly unreconcilable contradictions.
: that the Torah is one story by one person (even God) then it also has to
: be concluded that it is self-contradictory and full of gross errors.
: Yes, there are many so-called harmonizations of the many textual
: discrepancies, but these are often very illogical, and they always ignore
: the peshat, the plain meaning of the text.
That's because those harmonizations ARE d'rash. The whole meaning of d'rash is
"the Torah indicated by abnormalities in the text".
: The Bible already is accepted by religious Jews as
: being divinely inspired, yet it is also accepted as having many sources.
: The same is then true for the Torah.
The Oral Torah
: And _very_ clearly so. Some verses in the Torah claim that the flood
: lasted 40 days and nights. Other verses say 150 days.
Huh? It says it rained for 40 days, that the flood didn't recede until 150
days.
: that Noah should take two of each species, other say seven.
One says two of each species, which is true in general. The few kosher species
(a couple of dozen exceptions out of the set of all species?) are itemized in
the Adam II, the covenental man, part of the description. Adam I doesn't know
or care about kosher vs. non-kosher. I didn't deny the dual structure, just
that it indicates dual sources instead of dual messages.
Robert Kaiser
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
>
>On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 20:11:47 GMT, kai...@biosys.net wrote:
>: Each of these sources tells an entirely separate and self-sufficient
>: set of stories. Each of them, by themselves, make perfect sense.
>
>Great, so don't redact at all -- keep four sets of scriptures. Worked for the
>Gospels. The whole idea of redaction is to make a cohesive whole out of
>multiple sources.
But it did make a cohesive whole. Not perfect, sure. There
are many contradictions if you assume that the present text has only
one source. But you have to make a choice in redacting anything. You
can always make the text smoother br dropping one or more sets of
conflicting ideas, or you can try to keep as much of the original
material as possible. The redactor chose the latter.
>: All of the 'E'
>: writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint of the Northern Kingdom
>: of Israel. All of the 'J' writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint
>: of people on the southern kingdom, Judea. The 'P' sources clearly emerge
>: as being the point of view of the priestly administration in biblical
>: Israel, etc.
>
>Most of this is circular, as a lot of material's attribution is based on
>theser assumptions. For example, P is defined by "priestly administration"
>(thus the name "P"), so of course P fits such a view point. Similarly for much
>of the E&J material as well.
No, you have it backwards. This material's attributation was
most certainly not based on those assumptions. In fact, it was the
other war around. After the sources were unwrapped, the historical
correlations became apparent.
>: If someone without an Orthodox Jewish background looks at the Torah
>: dispassionately and honestly, they will soon note that it is filled with
>: numerous contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled.
>
>What a denial of Oral Torah!
That's the point. Non-Orthodox Jews do not assume that the oral
torah always accurately recorded history. In fact, when the historical
accounts in the oral Torah can be compared to historical records, the
oral Torah comes off quite badly. One of the things that is incorrect
on is the history regarding the transmission of the text of the Torah.
Basically, non-Orthodox Jews assert that one should not use a
religious guide to discover historic or scientific truth. And with
good reason! The rabbis were not trying to teach us how one set of
texts gets transmitted over milennia, they were trying to teach us how
to be good human beings.
Prof. David S. Levene sent a message to this newsgroup last
year, demonstrating how on historical matters, the Talmud is simply
unreliable. For those not familiar with finding such old posts, I
reproduce it below in its entirety.
**********************************************************
From: D S Levene <D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion for the sake of marriage
Date: 27 May 1997 18:25:48 GMT
Organization: University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Yaakov Menken <men...@torah.org> wrote:
> D S Levene <D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Yaakov Menken (men...@torah.org) wrote:
> >: On Mon, 19 May 1997 02:58:53 GMT, jlap...@usa.net (Jay Lapidus) wrote
> >: >The Talmud, Codes and Commentaries are not the only primary sources,
> >: >as you would discover if you read some of my references. These
> >: >sources include Greco-Roman writers and legal codes of Christian
> >: >domains.
> >: Nonesense. These are not primary sources when we are trying to
> >: understand the approach of Jewish Halachic authorities. They are
> >: external, second-hand analyses of the Jews and their motivations. Any
> >: or all may be motivated by anti-Semitism or ignorance, and are
> >: unlikely to distinguish between those who simply decided to convert on
> >: their own, vs. those who were proselytized. If we find _Halachic_
> >: sources, then we know conversion was actually encouraged by the Jewish
> >: Rabbis. I have already presented better-than-ample evidence that just
> >: the opposite was true - from Halachic sources.
> >You seem to be under some misapprehensions about historical methodology
> >(and indeed about some of the particular sources that are cited here).
> >Philo and Josephus are Jewish sources, not external in the normal sense in
> >of the term, and as such can provide evidence for Jewish attitudes at
> >their period (a period, one may add, for which no contemporary rabbinic
> >sources on the matter survive).
> Honestly, if RJL were to provide quotes from Philo or Josephus,
> _those_ I would need to address., because they are internal Jewish
> historians and understood traditional Jewish life. They often
> reflected Jewish affairs with great accuracy. Otoh, I would not give
> them greater weight than the Talmud.
I had previously understood you to dismiss Josephus and Philo out of hand
also: I apologise if I misinterpreted you.
As to whether one should give them greater weight than the Talmud, it
all depends in what area. Since the Talmud was compiled more than 400 years
after Josephus and Philo, and, with one or two odd exceptions, is hopelessly
unreliable on virtually all historical matters (see further below), Josephus
and Philo clearly have overwhelming precedence in any matter relating to the
history of the 1st century CE and earlier. Even on legal matters, it is (to
put it mildly) dubious that the Talmud gives a more accurate depiction of the
law as it existed in the 1st century CE than they do.
If, on the other hand, you are seeking to determine not what the law was
in the 1st century CE, but what the halacha is (or should be) now, then the
Talmud is manifestly of central relevance, and Josephus and Philo are not.
> > But one should also consider not merely de jure, but also de facto
> >attitudes - in other words, it might be the case that, whatever was said
> >in theory (which in some periods we have little evidence for one way or
> >the other), converts were in practice encouraged and indeed sought after.
> >For such matters, *all* sources are relevant, even pagans and Christians
> >who may well have no first-hand knowledge of Jewish legal theory.
> This is sometimes true, but only for the actions of commoners, not of
> the legislators themselves - certainly not in Jewish law. If something
> is explicitely discouraged de jure, then a court, which is the
> _source_ of justice, will not itself act against its own rulings. So
> we have seen from every other area of law. The Chief Rabbi of a city
> was usually involved in every conversion. Did he write one thing and
> do another? And even if the unthinkable were so, aren't we discussing
> the _Halachic_ record here? The Halacha, we can read for ourselves.
People (and not only lay people) frequently act against the rulings of
legal theory: for specific examples in Judaism I refer you to Jonathan
Baker's posts.
> > You correctly say above that primary sources are crucial. You seem,
> >however, not to be aware that primary sources may themselves have biases
> >the Res Gestae Divi Augusti is a primary source for the reign of the
> >Emperor Augustus, ... Rabbinic sources are also primary sources for
> >contemporary Jewish practices - but they too have biases in a different
> >direction. The job of an historian is to identify, account for, and
> >compensate for these biases.
> If there is no Rabbinic source for a practice, and in fact Rabbinic
> sources in every generation discourage it, then those same Rabbis
> won't do what they discourage (as possibly compared to commoners). We
> see this in every area of Halacha. Since judges do conversions, they
> would have had to be absolute hypocrites to condem proselytization and
> then do it. This is the most obvious evidence that a historian is
> either misunderstanding something, or following his biases.
We do not have rabbinic sources for every generation, as I have already
pointed out. Moreover, we cannot assume a priori even in those generations
for which we do have rabbinic sources that those sources represent the full
range of rabbinic opinion. To decide this, we have to look at *the whole
range* of available evidence, taking into account the possibility that they
may provide evidence for approaches that are not attested within surviving
rabbinic documents. Once again you are trying to find a priori reasons for
rejecting entire categories of contemporary source material out of hand: this
is not an acceptable historical procedure.
> Furthermore, you have confused early historical records with
> first-hand documents which are themselves evidence of what actually
> happened. The source you provide attempts to be a historical record,
> and it will have biases, yes. But we are not looking at an attempt to
> record history, but explicit Halachic rulings from the leading
> authorities of each generation, discouraging proselytization. It is
> extremely difficult to turn around and claim that these same
> authorities actually encouraged it.
I *think* (please correct me if I have misunderstood) that you here are
trying to limit the category of "primary source" to what one might call
"performative documents" - documents that do not merely record historical
events, but *are* actually the events themselves (as a business contract
document does not merely describe a particular contract, but is by its very
existence an actual part of that contract).
If so, you are using a definition of "primary source" that few
historians would recognise, and thus were guilty of an equivocation when you
said that "every student of history is well aware ... that primary sources
are crucial". The primary sources that they would regard as crucial *would*
include all of the sources that I have been discussing, not merely
performative documents of the sort that you describe here. Indeed, I would
go further and say that meaningful history could not be written from such
documents alone.
But there is an even greater problem. A legal ruling does, as you say,
by its very existence attest to the law it deals with. What it does *not* do
is tell one how widely the law was accepted, who followed it, who did not,
and so on. For the reasons I (and others) have set out, one is not entitled
uncomplicatedly to extrapolate from the existence of the law to the practice
in the area with which the law deals. And in so far as the law itself (as it
may do) seeks to describe (as opposed to prescribing) current practice, it is
instantly subject to precisely the same biases of any other historical
record. The only way of discovering what the actual practice was, what
rulings were followed, what were not, and so on, is to examine *all* the
evidence: once again, you seem instead to want to dismiss whole categories
out of hand.
> > Which brings me to the final, and perhaps most significant problem
> >with your approach. You seem to think that, once you have identified bias
> >in the relevant area, the evidence from that source can be dismissed out
> >of hand in its entirety.
> No. It is merely less accurate than our records of what the authorities
> themselves ruled. When the two contradict each other, I am not willing to
> give precedence to a historian over a Halachic authority in questions of
> Halacha.
But the question of *what happened* is not a halachic question; it is a
historical question, and one where, for reasons I have described, *all*
sources are relevant. The question of "what *should* have happened" - or
indeed "what should happen now" - is a halachic question: on these matters I
have nothing to say.
I must say that I agree with Jonathan Baker: you have allowed yourself
to be drawn out of matters of halacha into historical questions that,
frankly, you appear ill-equipped to deal with. You were discussing with
Rabbi Jay Lapidus the issue of the halacha of conversion. He made the claim
that as a matter of fact, before the 18th century conversion was encouraged.
You could have simply answered to him that, if anyone was encouraging
conversion, they were going against the halacha: had you done so, you would
have been justified in limiting yourself to halachic sources in order to
prove your case, and I, at least, would have been highly unlikely to have
entered the thread at all.
Instead you chose to deny the *factual* matter, and so switched the
ground (or allowed the ground to be switched) to one where historical sources
and historical methodology hold sway. Everything you have written since
gives the impression of a desperate rearguard action to try to discredit more
or less the whole discipline of history (at least as usually practiced) - and
all this merely in order to preserve particular conclusions that are really
quite unnecessary for your basic argument.
> > but still
> >less is it acceptable to reject the work of contemporary academic
> >historians who study that evidence alleging bias on their part, since the
> >whole ethos of contemporary historical research aims at a fair and
> >accurate account of the past based upon proper assessment of evidence.
> As I (and someone else) have already mentioned, at least one of these
> sources misunderstood an approval of _converts_ as an approval of
> _proselytization._ They don't understand the Halachic world and
> Halachic constructs, and I've repeatedly requested even a single
> Halachic source which supports their position. If their isn't one,
> it's obvious that the historians misunderstood something.
I may have missed the post in which you showed this; but in any case it
hardly addresses the issue. Unless you can show that *every* historian who
has drawn the conclusion you dislike has done so through bias (or
misunderstanding the question), you are not entitled to make the blanket and
a priori dismissal that you did of all the academic historians who have drawn
the opposite conclusion to the one which you wish to see.
> > Nothing I have said addresses the substantive issue of how far
> >converts were actually encouraged in the past. As it happens, at least
> >for the Roman period (the only one of which I have a reasonable
> >knowledge), I think Rabbi Lapidus may have inadvertently overstated the
> >case a little: one recent study has suggested that the matter is more
> >doubtful than he implies, and that Jews in Roman times were less forward
> >in seeking converts than has often been thought.
> Yes. In other words, the historians have realized that they should have
> followed the Talmud as accurate history, the first time around. This is
> hardly unique - the same is true regarding our model of the Second Temple
> as it once stood. Historians once disagreed with the Talmud, at least until
>they started excavating the stairs at the South Wall.
This is such a ridiculous comment that I hardly know where to begin.
Let me first get out of the way the idea that "historians have realised they
should have followed the Talmud". Goodman's arguments are *historical*
arguments: they are *not* the result of elevating the Talmud, but derive from
an assessment of *all* the evidence from the period. Actually, as I have
said, Goodman's main revisions concern the Second Temple and Tannaitic
period: he agrees that proselytism was more actively encouraged in the
Amoraic period. Far from endorsing the historical accuracy of your reading
of the Talmud, he rejects it much as other historians have done.
But it is your comments on the Talmud itself that have to be challenged.
(1) The main rabbinic description of the Temple is in the Mishnah, Tractate
Middot (there are also briefer details in other tractates). While, of
course, texts of the Talmud include the Mishnah, from a historical standpoint
we must make a firm division between the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Gemara
was compiled a good 300 years later than the Mishnah, and its accuracy or
otherwise is entirely independent of the accuracy or otherwise of the Mishnah
(save, obviously enough, when it draws its information directly from it).
(2) Contrary to what you say, well before anyone started excavating various
parts of the Temple Mount, virtually *all* historians accepted that the
Mishnah gave a broadly accurate description of the Temple (bibliography on
request) - not least because, in most of its details, it is confirmed by the
lengthy contemporary descriptions in Josephus. There are, however, some
points where Josephus and the Mishnah disagree: in some of those,
archaeological investigations have supported Josephus, in a few they support
the Mishnah. To seize on one of the latter and parade it as if it were an
astonishing vindication of "the accuracy of the Talmud" against the claims of
historians, is completely specious.
(3) When we come to the Gemara, and especially the aggadic material in
it, that is quite another story. Here indeed one would be right to say
that historians have rejected its accuracy. They have done so for
extremely good reasons. In virtually every area of the history of
(say) 586 BCE-135 CE where accounts in the Gemara can be tested against
external evidence, they come off disastrously badly. There are one or
two areas where that is not the case; but as a general rule it is not only
true, but easily and overwhelmingly demonstrable.
Take (my favourite example) the chronology of the Persian period, which
*every* rabbinic source from the Seder Olam Rabbah onwards gets appallingly
wrong. You have apparently been extremely impressed by one excavation on the
Temple Mount: I can show you literally thousands of excavated documents,
including numerous texts with dates confirmed by astronomical records,
that *prove* (that is not too strong a word) that the rabbinic sources are
wrong on this matter. Will that convince you that the Gemara is not to be
relied on historically? If not, I should like to know what *would* do so.
I may add that this is not atypical of the historical inaccuracy of
the Gemara: the inaccuracy of a range of other Talmudic stories is
likewise straightforward to demonstrate. Everything I have written in
this thread has stressed the importance of examining evidence *as a
whole*: and while there are, as I say, odd areas where aggadic portions of
the Gemara have preserved accurate information, they are far outweighed by
the passages where the contrary can be demonstrated. Merely finding one
or two details where the Gemara can be confirmed does virtually nothing to
support its general accuracy - the evidence on the other side is
overwhelming. Further details available on request.
This refers to aggadic portions of the Gemara; naturally halachic
portions have to be treated independently, and cannot be dismissed
as an historical source for earlier law solely because the narrative
sections are so dreadfully unreliable. The law in the 6th century
CE was, clearly enough, broadly similar to the law in the 1st century (at
least as practised by some groups within Judaism at that time): it is to
be expected that there should be substantial overlap. But even in these
areas, there are numerous points where the Gemara's description of the
earlier period can be challenged on the basis of contemporary evidence:
its reliability is very patchy at best, to the extent that we cannot
validly extrapolate back the law as recorded there without justifying that
extrapolation with specific evidence and arguments.
> >But the issue must be addressed on the merits of the evidence
> >and arguments: I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but I have to say that,
> >going by this thread, it is Rabbi Lapidus, and not you, who has shown the
> >willingness and capacity to make a fair assessment on this basis.
>
> David, by saying this you demonstrate only that you haven't understood
> this as a debate about Halacha, more than a debate about history. From
> a historical perspective, you can believe what you wish. We are
> discussing a _Halachic_ question here. My request for a _Halachic_
> source is reasonable, and obviously so.
As long as this was a debate about halacha, I understood it as such, and
stayed out of it. You have allowed it to become a debate about history -
note your frequent comments (even before I began participating) upon
historical methodology. You can hardly be surprised if, when you make
such comments, people interested in history come in to correct them.
When it returns to being a debate about halacha, I assure you that I shall
withdraw with alacrity.
David Levene
Department of Classics
University of Durham
Robert Kaiser
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
>: Yes, there are many so-called harmonizations of the many textual
>: discrepancies, but these are often very illogical, and they always ignore
>: the peshat, the plain meaning of the text.
>That's because those harmonizations ARE d'rash. The whole meaning of d'rash is
>"the Torah indicated by abnormalities in the text".
Exactly. And D'rash is _not_ P'shat.
>: And _very_ clearly so. Some verses in the Torah claim that the flood
>: lasted 40 days and nights. Other verses say 150 days.
>
>Huh? It says it rained for 40 days, that the flood didn't recede until 150
>days.
No, that is simply the way that it is drummed into people from
the time they set foot in Hebrew school until they get out of high
school or yeshiva. But that is not what the P'shat - the plain text -
actually says.
Shalom,
Robert
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> According to Robert Kaiser's web citations ... the main evidence that
>> lead people to accept DH is that many stories are duplicated, and some
>> are triplicated.
>
>
> No, not at all. Those are just one of the two lead indicators that led
> people to the idea that there might have been more than one source. The
> other lead indicator is that different parts of the Torah use different
> names for God. Now, one can readily unwind much of the Torah into four
Did it ever occur to these ignorami that traditional Jewish commentators
had already dealt with the MEANING of the different names of God ?
> basic sources, denoted, J, E, P and D, based on which parts use which
> names of God. But the fact that this can be done, by itself, doesn't
> show anything. It was what was discovered _after_ this was done that
> so was shocking:
>
> Each of these sources tells an entirely separate and self-sufficient
> set of stories. Each of them, by themselves, make perfect sense. And
Had these ignorami actually *read* what the Talmud (Eruvin 18a) says about
the two stories of Creation (that one was in *thought* and one was in *deed*)
they would have seen that traditional commentators already dealt with these
supposed *contradictions* more than 2000 years ago. Other sources in the
Talmud for the discrepancies between the 2 stories of Creation are found
in: Brachot 61a, Chagiga 12a, and Chulin 27b. Other commentators deal
with the two aspects of God: distant and transcendent vs. God as immanent
and caring (about man).
> each of them is aligned with a specific set of political and theological
> views, and they all contrast sharply with each other. All of the 'E'
> writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint of the Northern Kingdom
> of Israel. All of the 'J' writings make perfect sense from the viewpoint
> of people on the southern kingdom, Judea. The 'P' sources clearly emerge
> as being the point of view of the priestly administration in biblical
> Israel, etc.
>
When I read this above gibberish, all I can think of is the stunt pulled off
2 years ago by an American physics professor who wrote a nonsence paper
that was published by some top rated academic journal in the humanities.
I realize that scholars in the humanities aren't the brighest human beings on
earth but someone has to tell the Emperor that he isn't wearing any clothes :-)
Shoddy scholarship, faulty logic, distorted reasoning. BARUCH HASHEM YOM YOM
that these *scholars* don't design the elevators you take and the cars you
drive or else we'd all be in DRERDT :-)
>
> If someone without an Orthodox Jewish background looks at the Torah
> dispassionately and honestly, they will soon note that it is filled with
> numerous contradictions that simply cannot be reconciled. If you assume
> that the Torah is one story by one person (even God) then it also has to
> be concluded that it is self-contradictory and full of gross errors.
> Yes, there are many so-called harmonizations of the many textual
> discrepancies, but these are often very illogical, and they always ignore
> the peshat, the plain meaning of the text.
>
Yawn :-) Make that a double yawn.
>
>> I ask again, why would a redactor do such a sloppy job? How does DH answer
>> the question of repetition -- does it make more sense to include them in a
>> redaction that in an original text?
>
> You are making an incorrect assumption - you are assuming that the
> people who redacted the Torah made some sort of terrible, gross error by
> including all these sources, and by not mergeing all the stories into one.
> Why would you assume this? As a religious person, wouldn't you think
> that all the info about our patriarchs, and our info about God, is of the
> greatest importance? Why throw much of it away by trimming pieces?
> Jews _loved_ their sacred literature - they were not looking to abandon it.
> The Torah is a result of Ezra trying to preserve our people's legacy.
>
> What modern scholars have shown is that the Torah is no different than
> the rest of the Tanakh [Hebrew Bible]. Do you believe that God is real,
> and that God can reveal His will to man? Do you believe that the records
> of such encounters form the basis for the many books of the Bible? Well,
> that is exactly it. The Bible already is accepted by religious Jews as
> being divinely inspired, yet it is also accepted as having many sources.
> The same is then true for the Torah.
>
Bobo: why don't you do humanity a favor and become a Buddhist and seclude
yourself in a monastery in Tibet for the next 40 years ? Judaism would be
a lot better off.
Josh
>
>> Perhaps the one exception I could find was that of Noah's flood, where
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5993/flood.html asserts that the two
>> versions are interwoven to make one whole.
>
> And _very_ clearly so. Some verses in the Torah claim that the flood
> lasted 40 days and nights. Other verses say 150 days. Some verses say
> that Noah should take two of each species, other say seven. Yes, hundreds
> of years later people came up with all sorts of after-the-fact harmonizations
> to try and make it look like there was just one story - but all of these
> harmonizations totally deviate from the simple text of the Torah. Each one
> of them makes numerous assumptions with no proof.
>
> I'd reccomend reading Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" in
> conjunction with Stephen Mitchell's "Genesis", which presents the source
> stories of Genesis independently. If you have an open mind on the subject,
> these books will blow you away.
>
>
David Goldman
And Reformative or Conservaform doctrine is neither drash nor pshat.
It is nonsense.
Matt Silberstein
Goldman):
>> As a gross oversimplification of that perspective, analysis of
>>the Torah reveals four separate strands or sources, each with its own
>>vocabulary, its own approach and concerns. Those four sources are:
>
>Baloney. Anyone can invent silly hypotheses. Analysis shmanalysis. Do
>you need the works of Rabbi Weismandl and his successors again?
>Imagine someone taking a book, any book, lehavdil elef alfay havdalos,
>and sitting down and saying the following;
>
>1) Oh, here and here the author refers to G-d as Daddy.
>2) Here and here the author refers to G-d as Papa.
>3) Here and here the author refers to G-d as Father.
>
>Must have been written by three people. How illogical and superficial.
I can understand you disagreeing with the DH. However I find this
strawman argument useless. The DH does not say what you claim, it does
not say, four names for G-D, so four authors. It says separate
stories, correlated with distinct styles, correlated with distinct
names, correlated with distinct interests, etc. It is wrong and
misleading to pull out one piece and claim it is an argument. It is
not. It is not the existence of the separate names that is meaningful,
it is the consistency of their use with other aspects.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water!
And east is east, and west is west, and if you take cranberries and stew them
like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
Now, uh.....Now you tell me what you know."
Julius Marx
David Goldman
>strawman argument useless. The DH does not say what you claim, it does
>not say, four names for G-D, so four authors. It says separate
>stories, correlated with distinct styles, correlated with distinct
>names, correlated with distinct interests, etc.
So Matt, there is no possibility of ONE author being a CREATIVE
writer???
Herman Rubin
>In article <6sk8q5$d2i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, kai...@biosys.net writes:
>> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>> According to Robert Kaiser's web citations ... the main evidence that
>>> lead people to accept DH is that many stories are duplicated, and some
>>> are triplicated.
>> No, not at all. Those are just one of the two lead indicators that led
>> people to the idea that there might have been more than one source. The
>> other lead indicator is that different parts of the Torah use different
>> names for God. Now, one can readily unwind much of the Torah into four
>Did it ever occur to these ignorami that traditional Jewish commentators
>had already dealt with the MEANING of the different names of God ?
Give a philosopher a situation like this, and a strong religious
belief, and such arguments will be made. In a culture where
repetition of stories is common, and this was the Near Eastern
culture of the time, this would never have bothered them at all.
It is only when the evidence piles up, and the "smoking guns" are
found, that the acceptance of rationalization gets rejected. The
traditional commentators rarely had any real information other than
what we have without their commentary, nor did they have the
knowledge of history, and more accurate information deduced from
the records of other peoples which have been found, which we have.
>> basic sources, denoted, J, E, P and D, based on which parts use which
>> names of God. But the fact that this can be done, by itself, doesn't
>> show anything. It was what was discovered _after_ this was done that
>> so was shocking:
>> Each of these sources tells an entirely separate and self-sufficient
>> set of stories. Each of them, by themselves, make perfect sense. And
>Had these ignorami actually *read* what the Talmud (Eruvin 18a) says about
>the two stories of Creation (that one was in *thought* and one was in *deed*)
>they would have seen that traditional commentators already dealt with these
>supposed *contradictions* more than 2000 years ago. Other sources in the
>Talmud for the discrepancies between the 2 stories of Creation are found
>in: Brachot 61a, Chagiga 12a, and Chulin 27b. Other commentators deal
>with the two aspects of God: distant and transcendent vs. God as immanent
>and caring (about man).
There are many ways one deals with apparent contradictions. One can
look at the information and accept it, and try to decide how this
came about. Or one can argue that there is no way a real
contradiction could possibly occur, and come up with some contrived
"explanation".
Where are the first two rivers which came out of Eden? How does one
explain the concordance between the names of the descendents of Cain
and the descendents of Seth? How does one explain the political and
military incongruities in the Torah?
...............
>When I read this above gibberish, all I can think of is the stunt pulled off
>2 years ago by an American physics professor who wrote a nonsence paper
>that was published by some top rated academic journal in the humanities.
>I realize that scholars in the humanities aren't the brighest human beings on
>earth but someone has to tell the Emperor that he isn't wearing any clothes :-)
But I get the same feeling when looking at the rationalizations in the
Talmud and Midrash.
..................
Joel N. Shurkin
>
> > So despite [the Orthodox] claim that all of the words of the Torah, or
> > at least of the Humash [Five books of Moses] were dictated by God to
> > Israel, the Torah itself makes no such claim. Further on the issue of
> > Moses' writing down of the Torah, there are only four references in the
> > Humash to Moses writing anything:
>
> The Torah was given at Mt. Sinai as a long string of letters which
> were divided into words as they went along, as commanded by G-d in the
> Tent of Meeting. See Nachmanides instead of these jerks.
And Moses, the fabulous stenographer, got every one of those letters
right, and all the folks copying his transcript over the centuries never
missed a single one. And the great redactors could only sigh and say,
wow, every letter is heaven-sent, we have really nothing much to do
around hereå¹¼amel race anyone?<read what can kindly be called skepticism>
j
--
-------
Joel N. Shurkin
Science Writer
500 Jupiter Terrace
Santa Cruz, California 95065
***
"Am I Crazy, Or Is It My Shrink?" with Larry Beutler and Bruce Bongar,
Oxford University Press, 1998
http://www1.oup.co.uk
-0-
"Engines of the Mind", W.W. Norton, 1996
http://web.wwnorton.com/engines.htm
--
"Writing is a sacred callingå‚ut so are gardening, dentistry, and
plumbing, so don't put on airs."
Garrison Keillor.
Joel N. Shurkin
>
> Herman Rubin wrote:
>
> > Is there even one principle of Christian theology not accepted by the
> > Orthodox which is accepted by either Conservative or Reform Judaism?
>
> Actually, those Xians who believe in Torah MiSinai (the word-for-word
> transmission of the Written Torah) share something with classical
> Judaism that R and C do not. What R, C, and Xianity share is that they
> all diverted from the normative rabbinic tradition (though some C
> revisionists will try to deny this fact).
Who, in turn, diverted from the pre-rabbinic tradition.
Micha Berger
: >Did it ever occur to these ... that traditional Jewish commentators
: >had already dealt with the MEANING of the different names of God ?
: Give a philosopher a situation like this, and a strong religious
: belief, and such arguments will be made.
Actually, the explanation works quite well, and has needed much less honing
than DH has.
I could also point out the strong emotional motivation a skeptic has to
explain what otherwise would have to be taken as a supernatural document that
puts pretty stringent limitations on one's lifestyle. There's strong reason to
/want/ to be able to explain the Torah in more mudaine terms.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5911 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 3-Sep-98)
Rafael
>
> Rafael wrote:
> > Actually, those Xians who believe in Torah MiSinai (the word-for-word
> > transmission of the Written Torah) share something with classical
> > Judaism that R and C do not. What R, C, and Xianity share is that they
> > all diverted from the normative rabbinic tradition (though some C
> > revisionists will try to deny this fact).
>
> Who, in turn, diverted from the pre-rabbinic tradition.
You have no evidence to support this statement. We have only scripture
and rabbinic literature to attest to our pedagogic history. "Rabbi"
simply means "my teacher." The same word is used to describe
Moses--"Moshe Rabbenu"--"Moses Our Teacher." The tradition of "semicha"
(lit. "laying on of hands") was the official form of ordination, which
came to an end in talmudic times (see Deut. 34:9 for the source text).
Rabbis today receive "heter horaah" ("permission to teach"). As such,
there really is no "pre-rabbinic tradition."
Rafael
Matt Silberstein
Goldman):
>>I can understand you disagreeing with the DH. However I find this
Which is certainly a better argument that the strawman you originally
presented.
David Goldman
>presented.
>Matt Silberstein
I don't follow. The proposterous idea of multiple authors reflects the
silliness of limited thinking, even in human terms, that a book may
reflect many aspects but was written by one author.
Matt Silberstein
Goldman):
>>Which is certainly a better argument that the strawman you originally
Yes, if we start of saying the idea is preposterous we can show it is
invalid. But you did not argue that it was possible for one author to
write different ways, you claimed that the argument consisted of
saying there were different words for G-D therefore there were
different authors. That is not so, that is not what the DH claims. So
far I can see you reject the DH, but you have certainly not given me
any reason to reject it.
David Goldman
>invalid. But you did not argue that it was possible for one author to
>write different ways, you claimed that the argument consisted of
>saying there were different words for G-D therefore there were
>different authors. That is not so, that is not what the DH claims. So
>far I can see you reject the DH, but you have certainly not given me
>any reason to reject it.
>Matt Silberstein
There is no instead, the hypothesis is ludicrous, and is the figment
of active 19th century materialist positivist imaginations.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> The Origin of the Torah
Mister Kaiser:
Is there any reason this is the 4th time this year that you posted the
identical (nonsence) material ?
> -------------------------
> Modern critical scholars divide the Pentateuch into distinct
> components and constituent strata of tradition, identifying areas of
Who cares what gentiles (and Jewishly-illiterate Jews) write about
the Torah ?
> unevenness in the scriptural tradition, which point to several interwoven
> documents rather than one seamless whole. Although the conclusions reached
> by such critical scholarship are still matters of dispute, the
> inconsistencies identified stand clearly before us and pose a serious
> challenge to the believer in divine revelation. How can a text marred
> by contradiction be the legacy of Sinai? How can there be reverence for
> Holy Scriptures that show signs of human intervention?
>
>
> Answers?
> -------------
> David Weiss Halivni, former talmud professor at JTS, and current
> Rosh Yeshiva of the UTJ's Metivta - explores these questions. This is not
> done by disputing critical evidence, nor by defending at all costs the
> absolute integrity of the Pentateuchal words, but rather by accepting the
Yawn :-)
> inconsistencies of the text as such and asking how this text might yet
> be a divine legacy. Halivni attempts to answer these articulates a
> talmudic tradition according to which Ezra received, restored and
> repaired a "maculate" [imperfect] Torah, thereby initiating the tradition
> of oral Torah, torah she b'chtav, to which the rabbinic sages contribute.
^^^^^^^
Bobo, I'm so happy that this great Conservative theologian calls the Oral
Torah "torah she'B'CHTAV" (the WRITTEN Torah). I'm impressed with his
erudition and scholarship :-) Too bad every 3rd grade pisher in an Orthodox
yeshiva knows the difference between the Oral and the Written Torah.
And like Swiss clockwork, Kaiser regurgitates this NAARISHKEIT every 2 months.
> Commenting on Talmudic treatments of Shimon haTsaddik and on related texts,
> Halivni describes the evolutionary development of the oral Torah
> throughout rabbinic history.
>
Shimon HaTzaddik ? Or was this ignoramus mixing up Shimon HaTzadik with TZADOK
the disciple of Antigonos Ish Socho ?? Like the Conservatives, the TZDUKIM
(Sadduccees [sp. ?] ) also rejected the divine sanctity of the Oral Torah.
>
> "Revelation Restored : Divine Writ and Critical Responses"
> David Weiss Halivni. Hardcover, 128 pages
> Published by Westview Press, 1997
>
Yawn :-)
Josh
>
> "Peshat and Derash : Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis"
> David Weiss Halivni. Available in soft or hardback 272 pages
> Published by Oxford University Press, 1998
>
>
> Shalom,
>
> Robert
Robert Kaiser
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
>> inconsistencies of the text as such and asking how this text might yet
>> be a divine legacy. Halivni attempts to answer these articulates a
>> talmudic tradition according to which Ezra received, restored and
>> repaired a "maculate" [imperfect] Torah, thereby initiating the tradition
>> of oral Torah, torah she b'chtav, to which the rabbinic sages contribute.
>
>Torah "torah she'B'CHTAV" (the WRITTEN Torah). I'm impressed with his
>erudition and scholarship :-) Too bad every 3rd grade pisher in an Orthodox
>yeshiva knows the difference between the Oral and the Written Torah.
That quote came from the book jacket, written by a presumably
Jewish publisher. The error is not Rabbi Weiss-Halivni's. Futher, you
embarass yourself, and shame Orthodoxy, by spewing such vitriolic hate
mail simply because of a typo. What further verbal (and possibly
physical?) violence would you do if someone actually said something like
that in front of you?
Please, get help. You pathological hatred of all non-Orthodox
Jews seems to be growing by the day, and your posts are become more
and more illogical and hate-filled. You are on a fast-path to a
breakdown, Josh.
Robert
David Goldman
>Jews seems to be growing by the day, and your posts are become more
>and more illogical and hate-filled. You are on a fast-path to a
>breakdown, Josh.
>Robert
What about help for you? You consistently trafficking the silly
wornout idiotic illogic bubbamayses of the likes of Rabbi James, Rabbi
Evelyn, Rabbi Anthony and Rabbi Joanne........
Robert Kaiser
Huh? I have never heard of any of these people, let alone
quoted them. Please get back on your thorazine.
Robert
Daniel Israel
> And who on the Internet is *not* off his/her rocker? Didn't you see that
> Carnegie-Mellon study reported in yesterday's papers that implicates 'net use
> as a cause of depression?
I saw the headline, but I was too depressed to read the article.
--
Daniel M. Israel "There are two things the French should
<dan...@cfd.ame.arizona.edu> never be trusted with: building
University of Arizona fortifications and writing liner notes."
Tucson, AZ -Lawrence A. Johnson
Jonathan J. Baker
> I'd reccomend reading Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" in
>conjunction with Stephen Mitchell's "Genesis", which presents the source
>stories of Genesis independently. If you have an open mind on the subject,
>these books will blow you away.
People who write for an "open mind" seem to assume that the "open
mind" will not be a tabula rasa, but will be a mind that is already
predisposed to agree with the author. I don't like it from R' Avigdor
Miller (in "Rejoice O Youth", a polemic for Creationism, he tells the
reader to start by assuming that everything the scientists say is
hogwash. Not just to consider the scientific position on an equal
footing to the creationist position, but to a priori dismiss any
possible credibility to the other side) and I don't like it from
DH enthusiasts. As I've said over and over, the only way that DH
or its parallels look "better" than Divine dictation supported by
the Oral Torah, is to a priori assume that the Divine dictation
theory is false and groundless. That may work for Dr. Love and others,
but to me it's not intellectually honest.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
>On Wed, 02 Sep 1998 20:11:47 GMT, kai...@biosys.net wrote:
>: And _very_ clearly so. Some verses in the Torah claim that the flood
>: lasted 40 days and nights. Other verses say 150 days.
>Huh? It says it rained for 40 days, that the flood didn't recede until 150
>days.
An analogy for the simpleminded. Do you remember how one takes a bath?
One fills the tub for about 5 minutes, then the tub stays full for about
half an hour while you sit & read, or play with your little brother, or
whatever. God filled the Earth for 40 days, and didn't pull the plug
until 150 days. And if you say what about evaporation, I'll say the whole
flood is miraculous: have you ever seen it a) rain for 40 days & nights
so that b) the entire Earth, or even an entire region, is covered above
the mountaintops?
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
>There are many ways one deals with apparent contradictions. One can
>look at the information and accept it, and try to decide how this
>came about. Or one can argue that there is no way a real
>contradiction could possibly occur, and come up with some contrived
>"explanation".
>Where are the first two rivers which came out of Eden? How does one
The various geologic upheavals (earthquakes, etc.) that affect the
Tigris-Euphrates floodplain have shifted the courses of rivers in
that area over time. There is evidence of other rivers, four in
fact, coming out of the mountains in northern Iraq.
>explain the concordance between the names of the descendents of Cain
>and the descendents of Seth? How does one explain the political and
Maybe they named after relatives, like we (Ashkenazim) do?
>military incongruities in the Torah?
I don't know which you're referring to, but look in the commentaries
and you'll find some explanations.
Of course, if you're a Karaite and reject rabbinic commentaries
a priori, you need alternative mechanisms to explain the apparent
contradictions.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jacob Love
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>As I've said over and over, the only way that DH
>or its parallels look "better" than Divine dictation supported by
>the Oral Torah, is to a priori assume that the Divine dictation
>theory is false and groundless. That may work for Dr. Love and others,
>but to me it's not intellectually honest.
Thanks for the "promotion", but as I've noted before, like the famous
"Dr. Science" I used to listed to on NPR, I am a mere "master".
As for the more important matter, namely "intellectual honesty", let's
try the issue again. "Science" is the realm of discovering the world
through tools and systems of measurement that are of the natural
world. "Divine dictation" as near as I can understand the notion, is
orthoganal to science. Neither I, nor anyone else in my acquaintance on
this topic deny that if you admit "divine dictation" as one of
potential sources of the document, that it cannot be "disproven" since
it isn't subject to measurement in the first place. The balance of your
e-memo attempted to make some sort of distinction between what you
believe about the origin of Torah, and what the Creationists believe
about the origin of the universe. I must admit, I see no difference
between these two. If the Torah could come into existance through
"divine dictation" with contradictions, anachronisms, and all the rest,
why couldn't the world have come into existance with the evolutionary
record already in place?
Finally, a question that I have posed to you several times before: if
the "intellectually honest" thing to do is to admit the possibility of
the supernatural as an explanation of the origin of the Torah, what is
the "intellectually honest" rationale for excluding the same
explanation with regard to the Christian Bible, the Quran, and dozens
of other religions which claim to have forms of "divine dictation". As
near as I can tell, the explanation of some parts of Jewish Orthodoxy
is we know that our divine dictation is right and theirs is wrong
because we were born to Jewish mothers. Since this is the "intellectually
honest" method, perhaps we will see it being used more frequently
in scientific journals.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Herman Rubin
>In article <35eac...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@biosys.net (Robert Kaiser)
>> The Origin of the Torah
>Mister Kaiser:
>Is there any reason this is the 4th time this year that you posted the
>identical (nonsence) material ?
>> -------------------------
>> Modern critical scholars divide the Pentateuch into distinct
>> components and constituent strata of tradition, identifying areas of
>Who cares what gentiles (and Jewishly-illiterate Jews) write about
>the Torah ?
The idea that ONLY Jewish sources can provide information about the
history and origin of the Jewish religion and its documents, including
the statements in those documents about the physical universe, is at
best arrogance and stupidity.
Even Orthodoxy admits of non-Jewish prophets. Here, the question is
not whether we have the words of prophets, but of those who can reason
about facts. Also, when it comes to understanding something, it is
often those not directly in the field who can see things more clearly.
I wonder if even an account from the time of Ezra of putting various
fragments together to form a coherent text would convince you?
Herman Rubin
>> I'd reccomend reading Richard Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" in
>>conjunction with Stephen Mitchell's "Genesis", which presents the source
>>stories of Genesis independently. If you have an open mind on the subject,
>>these books will blow you away.
>People who write for an "open mind" seem to assume that the "open
>mind" will not be a tabula rasa, but will be a mind that is already
>predisposed to agree with the author.
..............
As I've said over and over, the only way that DH
>or its parallels look "better" than Divine dictation supported by
>the Oral Torah, is to a priori assume that the Divine dictation
>theory is false and groundless. That may work for Dr. Love and others,
>but to me it's not intellectually honest.
You seem to assume that those who do not believe in the Divine
dictation of the Torah started out to prove this disbelief.
The number of problems in taking the Torah to be the word of God
is quite large; I have posted on many of them. These problems
would exist even without the Documentary Hypothesis. I myself
am unwilling to believe that there were as few as four full
documents combined to produce the Torah, or that any of them
was an accurate transmission of the word of God.
I agree that maintaining different authorship of various parts
is not as easy as the supporters of the straight DH, but the
Mosaic authorship is no easier.
rafael
> between these two. If the Torah could come into existance through
> "divine dictation" with contradictions, anachronisms, and all the rest,
> why couldn't the world have come into existance with the evolutionary
> record already in place?
We don't agree that there are anachronisms in the Torah, but we do agree
that there are contradictions that beg for interpretation. The
traditional approach uses these contradictions either to extract textual
support for traditional practice or to hermeneutically construct new
laws. Either way, they are harnessed by the Oral Law, which mandates
certain immutable articles of faith. The evolutionary record could have
been in place, or it could follow the reigning paradigm of its field.
The halakhist is neutral on the issue
> Finally, a question that I have posed to you several times before: if
> the "intellectually honest" thing to do is to admit the possibility of
> the supernatural as an explanation of the origin of the Torah, what is
> the "intellectually honest" rationale for excluding the same
> explanation with regard to the Christian Bible, the Quran, and dozens
> of other religions which claim to have forms of "divine dictation". As
> near as I can tell, the explanation of some parts of Jewish Orthodoxy
> is we know that our divine dictation is right and theirs is wrong
> because we were born to Jewish mothers. Since this is the "intellectually
> honest" method, perhaps we will see it being used more frequently
> in scientific journals.
I've testified a number of times here that the reason that I don't find
the claims of other religions as compelling is that their histories all
follow more or less the same trend (e.g., a single charismatic leader,
or small cabal thereof, convince a following of a miraculous claim ).
Judaism, however, possesses the sole claim of national prophecy to
emerge from the ancient world, and has remained unique throughout
modernity, prompting world religions to "borrow" their claim as support
for their own (as they could not have successfully effected their own
claims of national prophecy).
Add to this the Jewish people's extraordinary history and influence (way
out of proportion with its numbers), and Judaism wins hands down, IMO.
It is still a faith, of course, but my point is that simply having a
Jewish mother is not a factor that I consider, and not one that I hear
from other committed Jews. (At this point, the question arises in my
mind: Why would someone who doesn't believe in the Torah's claims waste
their time on what they believe to be a false religion, no truer than
any other? Ethnic narcissism?)
Rafael
Matt Silberstein
Goldman):
>>Yes, if we start of saying the idea is preposterous we can show it is
As I have said repeatedly, you should consider making an actual
argument against it. You have done a good job in showing that you
disagree, but a poor job in convincing someone that there are any
flaws. "Yawn" is not an argument, "ludicrous" is not an argument, etc.
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>
>Who cares what gentiles (and Jewishly-illiterate Jews) write about
>the Torah ?
>
Silly me, but I would have thought that the validity of their
comments was independent of who they were and what religion they had.
>
[snip]
Micha Berger
: Silly me, but I would have thought that the validity of their
: comments was independent of who they were and what religion they had.
I disagree vehemently. Just as you would distrust an O source trying to prove
the inconsistancy of DH, you ought distrust someone with other religious
leanings who tries to prove it. That would be true skepticism, no?
The entire topic is far too religious and emotionally loaded -- for either
side -- to divorce the content from the source.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5916 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 8-Sep-98)
Rafael
> >Who cares what gentiles (and Jewishly-illiterate Jews) write about
> >the Torah ?
> >
> Silly me, but I would have thought that the validity of their
> comments was independent of who they were and what religion they had.
I think Josh was just a little frustrated with RK.
Actually, he has a point, insofar as Jewish religious practice is
concerned. Halakhic thought is premised on religious principles
recorded in classical rabbinic literature. As such, those who foster
different religious principles or lack knowledge and understanding of
them would be viewed as less than authoritative in halakhic circles.
Since RK is trying to defend a religious Jewish position via these
unauthoritative sources, the substance of Josh's comment is right on
target.
Rafael
Jacob Love
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>I disagree vehemently. Just as you would distrust an O source trying to prove
>the inconsistancy of DH, you ought distrust someone with other religious
>leanings who tries to prove it. That would be true skepticism, no?
>
>The entire topic is far too religious and emotionally loaded -- for either
>side -- to divorce the content from the source.
I don't see this, Micha. I agree that there are clearly members of the
Orthodox community (although certainly not its entirety) for whom the
topic is so emotionally overloaded that they cannot attempt an
objective response--this is certainly true as early as the (modern)
Torah commentaries of Hirsch and Hertz. And I agree that there are
parties on the other side who are also motivated by (in this case)
anti-religious fervor, and who therefore must be scrutinized with some
healthy skepticism. Such views would include, for example, the writings
of people involved in the American Atheist Society.
But the bulk of scholars who study the Documentary Hypothesis are
themselves religious people. Roman Catholics, mainstream Protestants,
non-Orthodox Jews, and even a few Orthodox Jews. Most of these would be
delighted to find texts which can be ascribed to as early a time as
possible. Many of them would be thrilled to conclude that large
portions of the Torah, or its entirety, could be attested at the time
of Moses. When you read many of these scholars, they exult in
discovering ancient roots that disprove the contentions of other
scholars that everything in the Torah is "made up" or very late.
Scholars such as these are not reporting their findings out of some
antipathy to Orthodox Judaism, but rather presenting the conclusions
they feel best result from the evidence. No one claims that anyone can
be entirely free of bias, but it is simply wrong to state the
conclusions which are quite uniform across religious denominations are
the sole product of some anti-Orthodox conspiracy. The evidence is
there, it is straightforward and not terribly difficult. Richard Eliot
Friedman was able to present a cogent and reasonably coherent argument
in just a few dozen pages. If you have some *rational* alternative, you
should present it, otherwise, it is misleading to suggest that the
rational explanation offered should be mistrusted due an allegation of
partisanship that really cannot be sustained.
Micha Berger
: But the bulk of scholars who study the Documentary Hypothesis are
: themselves religious people. Roman Catholics, mainstream Protestants,
: non-Orthodox Jews, and even a few Orthodox Jews.
I don't think any O Jews subscribe to DH. By my personal definition of O
(which would include the 13 articles of faith, the full version in M's
commentary to mishnah Sanhedrin), the claim would be tautologically
impossible.
But either way, Catholics and Protestants have a vested interest in showing
that their OT is no superior to their NT. To do this, they'd have to claim
what either neither is composed of composites, or that they both are. Claiming
that the gospels aren't composites is far more difficult than claiming the
Torah isn't, as parts of the source documents show up in Gnostic texts.
Non-religious people have a vested interest in showing that this very
demanding document is not the literal word of G-d, as that would imply major
alterations of one's lifestyle.
: Scholars such as these are not reporting their findings out of some
: antipathy to Orthodox Judaism, but rather presenting the conclusions
: they feel best result from the evidence.
I'm sure that /consciously/ that's true. However, since they are debating a
religious opinion, one can not claim they're dispassionate about it.
Or, to put it another way, I think it's great prejudice to think that modern
scholarship is more concerned with trying to get to the truth than millenia of
Rabbis were.
Rafael
> Or, to put it another way, I think it's great prejudice to think that modern
> scholarship is more concerned with trying to get to the truth than millenia of
> Rabbis were.
I'm so glad you finally responded to Jack. I've been biting my nails
for over an hour :-)
Rafael
Robert Kaiser
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
>On 8 Sep 1998 18:10:28 GMT, Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>: But the bulk of scholars who study the Documentary Hypothesis are
>: themselves religious people. Roman Catholics, mainstream Protestants,
>: non-Orthodox Jews, and even a few Orthodox Jews.
>I don't think any O Jews subscribe to DH. By my personal definition of O
>(which would include the 13 articles of faith, the full version in M's
>commentary to mishnah Sanhedrin), the claim would be tautologically
>impossible.
That's just it. Orthodox Jews come to accept the Documentary
Hypotheis all the time. But as soon as they do, it is then claimed that
they are no longer Orthodox. Then you claim that no Orthodox Jews accept
the Documentary Hypothesis. Perfectly circular...
>But either way, Catholics and Protestants have a vested interest in showing
>that their OT is no superior to their NT. To do this, they'd have to claim
>what either neither is composed of composites,...
No, not at all. Most Christians hated the idea of the Documentary
Hypothesis, and fought tooth and nail against it just as many religious
Jews did. They believed in Mosaic authorship just as Judaism did.
However, many have finally changed their mind, just as most Jews did
as well.
Shalom,
Robert
******************************************************************
E-mail me for info on the comprehensive on-line Jewish History
Timeline...or Conservative Judaism...or the Jewish Theology FAQs
....or classic 8-bit home videogames, especially the Odyssey^2!
******************************************************************
Harry Weiss
: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
: >On 8 Sep 1998 18:10:28 GMT, Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
: >: But the bulk of scholars who study the Documentary Hypothesis are
: >: themselves religious people. Roman Catholics, mainstream Protestants,
: >: non-Orthodox Jews, and even a few Orthodox Jews.
: >I don't think any O Jews subscribe to DH. By my personal definition of O
: >(which would include the 13 articles of faith, the full version in M's
: >commentary to mishnah Sanhedrin), the claim would be tautologically
: >impossible.
: That's just it. Orthodox Jews come to accept the Documentary
: Hypotheis all the time. But as soon as they do, it is then claimed that
: they are no longer Orthodox. Then you claim that no Orthodox Jews accept
: the Documentary Hypothesis. Perfectly circular...
C claims that a Jew who converts to Xianity is no longer a Jew. But
only those who accept Xianity convert Pefectly circular...
: >But either way, Catholics and Protestants have a vested interest in showing
: >that their OT is no superior to their NT. To do this, they'd have to claim
: >what either neither is composed of composites,...
: No, not at all. Most Christians hated the idea of the Documentary
: Hypothesis, and fought tooth and nail against it just as many religious
: Jews did. They believed in Mosaic authorship just as Judaism did.
: However, many have finally changed their mind, just as most Jews did
: as well.
They may be Jews, but that is not Judaism. Accepting DH is rejecting
Judaism.
: Shalom,
: Robert
: ******************************************************************
: E-mail me for info on the comprehensive on-line Jewish History
: Timeline...or Conservative Judaism...or the Jewish Theology FAQs
: ....or classic 8-bit home videogames, especially the Odyssey^2!
: ******************************************************************
: Geek Code d H- S !g p1 au a- w+ V+ c+ U- E- N++ W V+ po Y+ t++
: 5+++ R G' tv+ b++ B-- e++++ u+ f+ r h+ y+
: Yiddishkeit Code S+ SC Fa1,l NG+ M K+ H+ tI AT+ SY+,A Te+/Te++
: P+ FO++= D+ Tz+ E+ L- Am hc I+ Ha+ FH- IPL T- JE+
--
K'Tivah V'chatima Tova
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Joel N. Shurkin
>
>
>
>
> But either way, Catholics and Protestants have a vested interest in showing
> that their OT is no superior to their NT. To do this, they'd have to claim
> that the gospels aren't composites is far more difficult than claiming the
> Torah isn't, as parts of the source documents show up in Gnostic texts.
I suppose we run into a religious version of Occam's Razor, wherein the
simplest explanation is usually the best one. Which is the simplest
explanation, that the Torah was collected from an old and long oral
tradition and written down by editors, or that it was dictated by God to
a man 2,000 years earlier and remembered perfectly, every letter of it,
through all those years?
>
Joel N. Shurkin
Science Writer
500 Jupiter Terrace
Santa Cruz, California 95065
***
"Am I Crazy, Or Is It My Shrink?" with Larry Beutler and Bruce Bongar,
Oxford University Press, 1998
http://www1.oup.co.uk
-0-
"Engines of the Mind", W.W. Norton, 1996
http://web.wwnorton.com/engines.htm
--
"Writing is a sacred callingå‚ut so are gardening, dentistry, and
plumbing, so don't put on airs."
Garrison Keillor.
rafael
> >I don't think any O Jews subscribe to DH. By my personal definition of O
> >(which would include the 13 articles of faith, the full version in M's
> >commentary to mishnah Sanhedrin), the claim would be tautologically
> >impossible.
>
> That's just it. Orthodox Jews come to accept the Documentary
> Hypotheis all the time. But as soon as they do, it is then claimed that
> they are no longer Orthodox. Then you claim that no Orthodox Jews accept
> the Documentary Hypothesis. Perfectly circular...
It's not circular, it's tautological (as well as halakhic), like Micha
said. An O Jew, by definition, adheres to a set of principles (see
Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith). As soon as one is known to have
betrayed one of those principles, that person's status as "Orthodox" (to
use modern terminology) is forfeited (not to mention the metaphysical
forfeiture depicted in the Talmud).
Rafael
Matt Silberstein
<mi...@aishdas.org>:
>On 8 Sep 1998 18:10:28 GMT, Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>: But the bulk of scholars who study the Documentary Hypothesis are
>: themselves religious people. Roman Catholics, mainstream Protestants,
>: non-Orthodox Jews, and even a few Orthodox Jews.
>
>I don't think any O Jews subscribe to DH. By my personal definition of O
>(which would include the 13 articles of faith, the full version in M's
>commentary to mishnah Sanhedrin), the claim would be tautologically
>impossible.
>
>But either way, Catholics and Protestants have a vested interest in showing
>that their OT is no superior to their NT. To do this, they'd have to claim
>what either neither is composed of composites, or that they both are.
Sorry, but this really does not follow. And you need much better
support for claiming all these people are dishonest.
>Claiming
>that the gospels aren't composites is far more difficult than claiming the
>Torah isn't, as parts of the source documents show up in Gnostic texts.
>
>Non-religious people have a vested interest in showing that this very
>demanding document is not the literal word of G-d, as that would imply major
>alterations of one's lifestyle.
>
So it is reasonable for me to claim that, as an orthodox, you have a
vested interest against the DH and, by your logic, you are dishonest
and untrustworthy. Sorry, but I do not wish to make that judgement.
>: Scholars such as these are not reporting their findings out of some
>: antipathy to Orthodox Judaism, but rather presenting the conclusions
>: they feel best result from the evidence.
>
>I'm sure that /consciously/ that's true. However, since they are debating a
>religious opinion, one can not claim they're dispassionate about it.
>
>Or, to put it another way, I think it's great prejudice to think that modern
>scholarship is more concerned with trying to get to the truth than millenia of
>Rabbis were.
You are making a stronger claim. You are saying that we have to ignore
to he words and thought of all but those we start out *knowing* are
right-thinking.
Matt Silberstein
<raf...@nyct.net>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>> In soc.culture.jewish I read this message from bac...@vms.huji.ac.il:
>
>> >Who cares what gentiles (and Jewishly-illiterate Jews) write about
>> >the Torah ?
>> >
>> Silly me, but I would have thought that the validity of their
>> comments was independent of who they were and what religion they had.
>
>I think Josh was just a little frustrated with RK.
>
>Actually, he has a point, insofar as Jewish religious practice is
>concerned.
Since the discussion is not about Jewish religious practices I don't
see how that matters.
>Halakhic thought is premised on religious principles
>recorded in classical rabbinic literature. As such, those who foster
>different religious principles or lack knowledge and understanding of
>them would be viewed as less than authoritative in halakhic circles.
>
Actually I don't understand the idea of authoritative writings here.
The Talmud is great because we get the reasoning, not because we get
the authorized answers.
>Since RK is trying to defend a religious Jewish position via these
>unauthoritative sources, the substance of Josh's comment is right on
>target.
No, it is not. The question is who wrote the Bible, not how to follow
the law.
Matt Silberstein
<mi...@aishdas.org>:
>On Tue, 08 Sep 1998 14:25:21 GMT, Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: Silly me, but I would have thought that the validity of their
>: comments was independent of who they were and what religion they had.
>
>I disagree vehemently. Just as you would distrust an O source trying to prove
>the inconsistancy of DH,
No, I would not. But I don't see how trust became the issue. If the
claim is that the non-Jew, because he was a non-Jew, was lying that is
just bigotry.
> you ought distrust someone with other religious
>leanings who tries to prove it. That would be true skepticism, no?
>
No. If someone makes a claim of fact I try to get independent support
for that claim. If they make an argument I try to see if I find the
argument valid. I do not reject it because I have a religious
disagreement with the author.
>The entire topic is far too religious and emotionally loaded -- for either
>side -- to divorce the content from the source.
>
That is too bad and an error, not something to be justified and
supported.
David Ellis
>I think it's great prejudice to think that modern
>scholarship is more concerned with trying to get to the truth than millenia of
>Rabbis were.
I don't think anybody is trying to imply that all the generations of
Rabbis were less than eager to get to the truth. But I would say,
respectfully, that their methods of approaching the truth didn't
include all the tools of modern scholarship.
--
David J Ellis
92 Wilson Drive / Framingham, MA 01702
d...@mkitso.ultranet.com
Binyomin Kaplan
> No, not at all. Most Christians hated the idea of the Documentary
> Hypothesis, and fought tooth and nail against it just as many religious
> Jews did. They believed in Mosaic authorship just as Judaism did.
> However, many have finally changed their mind, just as most Jews did
> as well.
Intellectual trends often have sociological causes, however. Almost all the
major Xian denominations have been inluenced by secularizing tendencies in
society at large. The advance of the DH may have contributed to this, but it may
also partially be a product of it. The fact that the DH has become entrenched in
Biblical scholarship does not necessarily mean that the evidence for it is
ultimately that compelling. Attempts to do elaborate source-studies based solely
on internal textual evidence (there isn't any documentary evidence for the
documentary hypothesis--nobody ever found a manuscript of J) is generally a
pretty speculative business. It sounds rather impressive to discover through
analysis that there are "two flood stories" that are "seperable and complete"
(Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible, p. 60). If you describe more objectively what DH
analysis does, then you have to simply say that it involves making selections of
verses and observing that there is correlation between textual features. What
name of G-d is being used, to mention the most famous example, often correlates
with what kind of information the text is presenting, which the traditional
commentators always logically assumed to mean the the various names of G-d have
content which is relevant to context. When you call this an instance of the
different sources having different "concerns," the evidence has already been
interpreted in terms of the claim. But aren't there two "complete" flood stories
no matter what? I don't think so. The ability to take a selection of statements
from a narrative and still preserve something of the over-all shape of the
narrative is just not that impressive. The "J" flood story is generally what you
would expect from a large selection of statements excerpted from a narrative: a
full fragment but still a fragment. Let's assume that Friedman's version (pp.
54-59) is the authoritative division generally agreed on by biblical scholars.
He presents three verses of "J" and then a large block of "P." When we get back
to "J" we read that G-d said to Noach "Come, you and all your household to the
ark." What ark? If I am reading correctly, there has been no mention of any ark
up to this point. J also jumps from Noach seeing that the Earth is dry to Noach
building an altar without any statement that anyone left the ark.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> In article <1998Sep3.001823@hujicc>, <bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>In article <6sk8q5$d2i$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, kai...@biosys.net writes:
>>> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>>> According to Robert Kaiser's web citations ... the main evidence that
>>>> lead people to accept DH is that many stories are duplicated, and some
>>>> are triplicated.
>
>
>>> No, not at all. Those are just one of the two lead indicators that led
>>> people to the idea that there might have been more than one source. The
>>> other lead indicator is that different parts of the Torah use different
>>> names for God. Now, one can readily unwind much of the Torah into four
>
>
>>Did it ever occur to these ignorami that traditional Jewish commentators
>>had already dealt with the MEANING of the different names of God ?
>
>
> Give a philosopher a situation like this, and a strong religious
> belief, and such arguments will be made. In a culture where
> repetition of stories is common, and this was the Near Eastern
> culture of the time, this would never have bothered them at all.
>
> It is only when the evidence piles up, and the "smoking guns" are
> found, that the acceptance of rationalization gets rejected. The
> traditional commentators rarely had any real information other than
> what we have without their commentary, nor did they have the
> knowledge of history, and more accurate information deduced from
> the records of other peoples which have been found, which we have.
>
>
>
>
>>> basic sources, denoted, J, E, P and D, based on which parts use which
>>> names of God. But the fact that this can be done, by itself, doesn't
>>> show anything. It was what was discovered _after_ this was done that
>>> so was shocking:
>
>>> Each of these sources tells an entirely separate and self-sufficient
>>> set of stories. Each of them, by themselves, make perfect sense. And
>
>
>
>>Had these ignorami actually *read* what the Talmud (Eruvin 18a) says about
>>the two stories of Creation (that one was in *thought* and one was in *deed*)
>>they would have seen that traditional commentators already dealt with these
>>supposed *contradictions* more than 2000 years ago. Other sources in the
>>Talmud for the discrepancies between the 2 stories of Creation are found
>>in: Brachot 61a, Chagiga 12a, and Chulin 27b. Other commentators deal
>>with the two aspects of God: distant and transcendent vs. God as immanent
>>and caring (about man).
>
> There are many ways one deals with apparent contradictions. One can
> look at the information and accept it, and try to decide how this
> came about. Or one can argue that there is no way a real
> contradiction could possibly occur, and come up with some contrived
> "explanation".
>
> Where are the first two rivers which came out of Eden? How does one
> and the descendents of Seth? How does one explain the political and
>
>
>
>>When I read this above gibberish, all I can think of is the stunt pulled off
>>2 years ago by an American physics professor who wrote a nonsence paper
>>that was published by some top rated academic journal in the humanities.
>>I realize that scholars in the humanities aren't the brighest human beings on
>>earth but someone has to tell the Emperor that he isn't wearing any clothes :-)
>
> But I get the same feeling when looking at the rationalizations in the
> Talmud and Midrash.
Herman, I had no idea you were fluent in both Hebrew and Aramaic and that you
had intensive study of original texts in Talmud. When did this *miracle*
happen ? :-)
Putting it bluntly: you have the audacity to write what you wrote above ????
But I forget: this is Herman Rubin who told us 2 years ago on SCJ that any
high school graduate can be a heart surgeon with minimal training after
high school.
Josh
>
> ..................
Matt Silberstein
<raf...@nyct.net>:
>Robert Kaiser wrote:
>>
>> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
>
>> >I don't think any O Jews subscribe to DH. By my personal definition of O
>> >(which would include the 13 articles of faith, the full version in M's
>> >commentary to mishnah Sanhedrin), the claim would be tautologically
>> >impossible.
>>
>> That's just it. Orthodox Jews come to accept the Documentary
>> Hypotheis all the time. But as soon as they do, it is then claimed that
>> they are no longer Orthodox. Then you claim that no Orthodox Jews accept
>> the Documentary Hypothesis. Perfectly circular...
>
>It's not circular, it's tautological (as well as halakhic), like Micha
>said. An O Jew, by definition, adheres to a set of principles (see
>Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith). As soon as one is known to have
>betrayed one of those principles, that person's status as "Orthodox" (to
>use modern terminology) is forfeited (not to mention the metaphysical
>forfeiture depicted in the Talmud).
Fine. But don't turn and use the lack of Orthodox support for the DH
as a meaningful support. It is not.
Matt Silberstein
(Harry Weiss):
>Robert Kaiser (kai...@biosys.net) wrote:
>
>: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
>: >On 8 Sep 1998 18:10:28 GMT, Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>: >: But the bulk of scholars who study the Documentary Hypothesis are
>: >: themselves religious people. Roman Catholics, mainstream Protestants,
>: >: non-Orthodox Jews, and even a few Orthodox Jews.
>
>: >I don't think any O Jews subscribe to DH. By my personal definition of O
>: >(which would include the 13 articles of faith, the full version in M's
>: >commentary to mishnah Sanhedrin), the claim would be tautologically
>: >impossible.
>
>
>: That's just it. Orthodox Jews come to accept the Documentary
>: Hypotheis all the time. But as soon as they do, it is then claimed that
>: they are no longer Orthodox. Then you claim that no Orthodox Jews accept
>: the Documentary Hypothesis. Perfectly circular...
>
>C claims that a Jew who converts to Xianity is no longer a Jew. But
>only those who accept Xianity convert Pefectly circular...
>
It would be if you used the lack of Christian Jews as a support for an
argument. Since it is definitional it should be circular. But here
Micha used the lack of Orthodox support for the DH as though that was
an argument against the DH. But the support is not there only because
Micha said that once you support the DH you are not an orthodox Jew.
That argument is invalid. I do hope that you can see why.
>
>
>: >But either way, Catholics and Protestants have a vested interest in showing
>: >that their OT is no superior to their NT. To do this, they'd have to claim
>: >what either neither is composed of composites,...
>
>: No, not at all. Most Christians hated the idea of the Documentary
>: Hypothesis, and fought tooth and nail against it just as many religious
>: Jews did. They believed in Mosaic authorship just as Judaism did.
>: However, many have finally changed their mind, just as most Jews did
>: as well.
>
>They may be Jews, but that is not Judaism. Accepting DH is rejecting
>Judaism.
>
Again you use a definitional wall instead of an argument. We can
define the group any way we wish. That does not change the substance
of the argument. You are making the exact same claims that
fundamentalist creationist Christians make. They say that to be a
Christian you have to hold a literal, descriptive interpretation of
Genesis. They then say, as support for there position, that no
Christian supports evolution. Sure, because they just define away
those who do. Neither claim says anything about the substance of the
argument. I would really hope that someone reading the DH would judge
it on it's merits, on whether it made sense and whether they thought
it was true. I am frightened by the idea that they would say: "this
seems true, but if I accept it I am not an Orthodox Jew, so I can't
accept it." The truth should be independent on the categories people
put you in.
Rafael
> Since the discussion is not about Jewish religious practices I don't
> see how that matters.
You must not be aware of RK's religious agenda.
> Actually I don't understand the idea of authoritative writings here.
> The Talmud is great because we get the reasoning, not because we get
> the authorized answers.
The Talmud is the reconstruction of the Oral Torah. The information
contained therein (be they methodologies or rulings) is highly
authoritative. If you do not adhere to classical Jewish belief, however,
then the point is moot.
> >Since RK is trying to defend a religious Jewish position via these
> >unauthoritative sources, the substance of Josh's comment is right on
> >target.
>
> No, it is not. The question is who wrote the Bible, not how to follow
> the law.
You must read RK's threads as a whole to understand what I'm getting at.
Rafael
Rafael
>
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> >I think it's great prejudice to think that modern
> >scholarship is more concerned with trying to get to the truth than millenia of
> >Rabbis were.
>
> I don't think anybody is trying to imply that all the generations of
> Rabbis were less than eager to get to the truth. But I would say,
> respectfully, that their methods of approaching the truth didn't
> include all the tools of modern scholarship.
The "great prejudice," as I see it, is that one assumes that "tools of
modern scholarship" are inherently better than the old ones.
Of course, we are dealing with different belief systems. Secular
scholarship seeks truth, but it does so based on its naturalistic
assumptions. Classical Torah scholarship seeks truth, but it does so
based on its traditional religious assumptions. Different axioms,
different conclusions.
Rafael
Rafael
>
> In soc.culture.jewish I read this message from rafael
> <raf...@nyct.net>:
> >It's not circular, it's tautological (as well as halakhic), like Micha
> >said. An O Jew, by definition, adheres to a set of principles (see
> >Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith). As soon as one is known to have
> >betrayed one of those principles, that person's status as "Orthodox" (to
> >use modern terminology) is forfeited (not to mention the metaphysical
> >forfeiture depicted in the Talmud).
>
> Fine. But don't turn and use the lack of Orthodox support for the DH
> as a meaningful support. It is not.
A meaningful support for what? I don't claim to be engaged in a polemic
over the merits or demerits of DH. AFAIK, DH scholars are true to their
axiom (i.e., that the Torah came into existence through natural means).
My claim is that it has no place in Judaism (whose defining axiom is
that the Torah came into existence through specific supernatural
means).
Aside from the halakhic problems, conflicting axioms logically make for
an unsustainable religion.
Rafael
Micha Berger
: But here
: Micha used the lack of Orthodox support for the DH as though that was
: an argument against the DH. But the support is not there only because
: Micha said that once you support the DH you are not an orthodox Jew.
No I didn't. It was said that there are O Jews who accept DH. I just pointed
out that such people may think themselves O, but I (and I think most
self-identifying O) wouldn't. I don't think this implies anything about the
incorrectness of DH.
THAT's why my post wasn't circular.
The thrust of my post was the other part: that it is prejudicial to think that
one set of scholars are approaching the subject with less willingness to
abandon bias for proven truth than the other.
Which remind me of my definition of yellow journalism: Journalism whose bias
is different than mine.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5917 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 9-Sep-98)
Micha Berger
: Sorry, but this really does not follow. And you need much better
: support for claiming all these people are dishonest.
I'm not claiming they're dishonest, just prejudiced to find a particular kind
of result. Are you claiming the millenia of people who pored over these texts
before 1800 are dishonest?
Ever notice how religious biblical archeologists somehow always succeed in
interpreting their findings in a way that is proves Biblical claims, but
irreligious ones tend to produce disproofs?
The mind is a wonderful organ for justifying decisions the heart already made.
It's part of being human.
: So it is reasonable for me to claim that, as an orthodox, you have a
: vested interest against the DH...
I'll agree to that. Therefore, scholars on BOTH sides are going to find what
they are looking for. Regardless of which side holds the truth.
: You are making a stronger claim. You are saying that we have to ignore
: to he words and thought of all but those we start out *knowing* are
: right-thinking.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that emotionally charged subjects can't be objectively
studied. People are too human.
Matt Silberstein
<raf...@nyct.net>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> Since the discussion is not about Jewish religious practices I don't
>> see how that matters.
>
>You must not be aware of RK's religious agenda.
Nor do I care. He is presenting an idea. You can attack the man or the
idea but don't confuse one with the other. A person with a bad agenda
can say reasonable things and person with a good agenda can say false
things.
>
>> Actually I don't understand the idea of authoritative writings here.
>> The Talmud is great because we get the reasoning, not because we get
>> the authorized answers.
>
>The Talmud is the reconstruction of the Oral Torah. The information
>contained therein (be they methodologies or rulings) is highly
>authoritative. If you do not adhere to classical Jewish belief, however,
>then the point is moot.
>
And classical Jewish belief does not tell me that I take the words
simply on their authority. I take it because I have followed the
arguments and I have followed other arguments by the person.
>> >Since RK is trying to defend a religious Jewish position via these
>> >unauthoritative sources, the substance of Josh's comment is right on
>> >target.
>>
>> No, it is not. The question is who wrote the Bible, not how to follow
>> the law.
>
>You must read RK's threads as a whole to understand what I'm getting at.
>
Sorry, but it still a fallacious argument. The DH could still be right
and his argument from it wrong. You have to treat them distinctly. If
he draws conclusions from the DH you don't like, challenge that
argument. But do not expect to convince me that the DH is wrong
because RK has an agenda.
Matt Silberstein
<mi...@aishdas.org>:
>On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 01:32:19 GMT, Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: Sorry, but this really does not follow. And you need much better
>: support for claiming all these people are dishonest.
>
>I'm not claiming they're dishonest, just prejudiced to find a particular kind
>of result. Are you claiming the millenia of people who pored over these texts
>before 1800 are dishonest?
>
No, but I don't claim they came to their position in order to make a
political point.
>Ever notice how religious biblical archeologists somehow always succeed in
>interpreting their findings in a way that is proves Biblical claims, but
>irreligious ones tend to produce disproofs?
What a surprise. If I did not believe and I found arguments that led
me to believe, I would change my position. And visa versa.
>The mind is a wonderful organ for justifying decisions the heart already made.
>It's part of being human.
>
>: So it is reasonable for me to claim that, as an orthodox, you have a
>: vested interest against the DH...
>
>I'll agree to that. Therefore, scholars on BOTH sides are going to find what
>they are looking for. Regardless of which side holds the truth.
You are ignoring a major point. The DH does not say "God did not do
it". It says "It happened via X and Y and Z". It is a specific
assertive position, not a negative one.
>: You are making a stronger claim. You are saying that we have to ignore
>: to he words and thought of all but those we start out *knowing* are
>: right-thinking.
>
>No, I'm not. I'm saying that emotionally charged subjects can't be objectively
>studied. People are too human.
>
Which basically means that you think there can be no reasonable
discussion on this issue. And, I suspect, on a host of other issues.
Sorry, but I disagree.
Jacob Love
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>Ever notice how religious biblical archeologists somehow always succeed in
>interpreting their findings in a way that is proves Biblical claims, but
>irreligious ones tend to produce disproofs?
Actually, having studied in this field for approaching a third decade,
I have noticed nothing of the kind. If your point is that
fundamentalists always find some excuse to deny material that
contradicts their religious beliefs, I certainly agree with that. If
you point out that there are anti-religious personalities in the
disciplines (John Allegro stands out in my mind as this sort of person)
who attempt to skew the data against religious ideas, I also agree with
that. But the overwhelming majority of scholars in the field are
decent, honest and often extremely pious people who do their best to
interpret the evidence in an objective fashion.
Rafael
>
> In soc.culture.jewish I read this message from Rafael
> <raf...@nyct.net>:
> >You must not be aware of RK's religious agenda.
>
> Nor do I care. He is presenting an idea. You can attack the man or the
> idea but don't confuse one with the other. A person with a bad agenda
> can say reasonable things and person with a good agenda can say false
> things.
Fine. You argue in your sphere and I'll argue in mine. Since I know
from experience that RK would like his ideas to be validated in both
spheres, we both a share a piece of the discussion (although perhaps not
with eachother).
> And classical Jewish belief does not tell me that I take the words
> simply on their authority. I take it because I have followed the
> arguments and I have followed other arguments by the person.
If you want to argue principles of Jewish belief, that's another story.
The Talmud is premised on a set of religious beliefs. If you do not
share those beliefs (e.g., the Sinaitic origin of both a Written and an
Oral Torah), then, of course, you are going to be skeptical of the legal
information contained in the Talmud. For over a millenium, classical
Judaism has viewed the Talmud Bavli as the authoritative documentation
of the Oral Torah (see Rambam's Introduction to Mishneh Torah). It's not
an end to Mesorah, but a crucial link.
The Sages present logical arguments and use hermeneutical principles
(themselves held to be Sinaitic in origin) to support the traditional
practices they already had, but one must also take it on their authority
that what they are telling us is indeed Oral Torah. There is an
obligation to obey rabbinic authority rooted in Biblical law (see Deut.
17:8-9).
There is much to say about this topic. I recommend H. Chaim Schimmel's
Oral Law (Feldheim) for an overview of traditional viewpoints.
> Sorry, but it still a fallacious argument. The DH could still be right
> and his argument from it wrong. You have to treat them distinctly. If
> he draws conclusions from the DH you don't like, challenge that
> argument. But do not expect to convince me that the DH is wrong
> because RK has an agenda.
I didn't argue the DH is wrong. I argued that it is unacceptable within
the framework of Judaism. Rembember: opposing assumptions.
Rafael
Jacob Love
>I didn't argue the DH is wrong. I argued that it is unacceptable within
>the framework of Judaism. Rembember: opposing assumptions.
If you desire to make this argument on behalf of Orthodox Judaism, and
if the other proponents of that group do not disagree, then that is
fine. But since "Judaism" is a broader religion than Orthodoxy
regardless of O's claims, you do not have the right to speak on its
behalf. The overwhelming majority of Jews in the world acknowledge the
likelihood that the Torah did not come to be in the manner you claim,
and the overwhelming majority of affiliated Jews in the world belong to
congregations which do not accept your interpretation of Jewish dogma.
Micha Berger
: >Ever notice how religious biblical archeologists somehow always succeed in
: >interpreting their findings in a way that is proves Biblical claims, but
: >irreligious ones tend to produce disproofs?
: What a surprise. If I did not believe and I found arguments that led
: me to believe, I would change my position. And visa versa.
What I said, was, though, that their "scientific" findings ended up pretty
consistantly in line with the religious/emotional position they held when
starting the dig.
It seems to argue that people are incapable of real objectivity in the domain
of biblical archeology.
: You are ignoring a major point. The DH does not say "God did not do
: it". It says "It happened via X and Y and Z". It is a specific
: assertive position, not a negative one.
Relevency?
: Which basically means that you think there can be no reasonable
: discussion on this issue. And, I suspect, on a host of other issues.
: Sorry, but I disagree.
There can be, just one has to take into account existential and subjective
data, and not pretend we're being objective about it.
Rafael
have a few thoughts I'd like to offer, as well.>
Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
> In soc.culture.jewish I read this message from Micha Berger
> <mi...@aishdas.org>:
> >of result. Are you claiming the millenia of people who pored over these texts
> >before 1800 are dishonest?
> >
> No, but I don't claim they came to their position in order to make a
> political point.
The point he made was that both circles have their own distinct
assumptions about the subject and their own distinct tools of analysis.
Is that politics? If so, both groups are engaged in it (although
"philosophy" seems a more accurate term).
> What a surprise. If I did not believe and I found arguments that led
> me to believe, I would change my position. And visa versa.
Unless one picks up one's faith at a seminar on Bible codes, one
generally does not become religious by merely studying the Pentateuch.
The edifice called Judaism is much larger than a text book.
> >I'll agree to that. Therefore, scholars on BOTH sides are going to find what
> >they are looking for. Regardless of which side holds the truth.
>
> You are ignoring a major point. The DH does not say "God did not do
> it". It says "It happened via X and Y and Z". It is a specific
> assertive position, not a negative one.
It essentially negates the traditional claim by ignoring it and looking
for alternative explanations for the text's origin. This reflects a
naturalistic assumption which is consistent (if not imperative) within
the secular academic world, but inconsistent with classical Jewish
philosophy and law.
> >No, I'm not. I'm saying that emotionally charged subjects can't be objectively
> >studied. People are too human.
> >
> Which basically means that you think there can be no reasonable
> discussion on this issue. And, I suspect, on a host of other issues.
> Sorry, but I disagree.
You disagree that an O Jew cannot agree to the assumptions underlying
DH?
Rafael
y...@my-dejanews.com
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> In soc.culture.jewish I read this message from Micha Berger
> <mi...@aishdas.org>:
>
wrote:
> >: Sorry, but this really does not follow. And you need much better
> >: support for claiming all these people are dishonest.
> >
> >I'm not claiming they're dishonest, just prejudiced to find a particular kind
> >before 1800 are dishonest?
> >
> No, but I don't claim they came to their position in order to make a
> political point.
>
> >interpreting their findings in a way that is proves Biblical claims, but
> >irreligious ones tend to produce disproofs?
>
> me to believe, I would change my position. And visa versa.
Unfortunately, not everyone is as unbiased and willing to admit conflicting
evidence as you are. BTW, have you ever had to do it -- change your position
drastically based on hitherto unknown evidence or interpretation thereof?
> >The mind is a wonderful organ for justifying decisions the heart already
made.
> >It's part of being human.
> >
> >: So it is reasonable for me to claim that, as an orthodox, you have a
> >: vested interest against the DH...
> >
> >I'll agree to that. Therefore, scholars on BOTH sides are going to find what
> >they are looking for. Regardless of which side holds the truth.
>
> You are ignoring a major point. The DH does not say "God did not do
> it". It says "It happened via X and Y and Z". It is a specific
> assertive position, not a negative one.
Yes, but to us O both Mosaic authorship *and* a complete original recording
by Moses are important. (OK, there's a view that the last few verses may have
been recorded by Joshua.) That's why all the talk about J and P and E gets
some people upset.
> >: You are making a stronger claim. You are saying that we have to ignore
> >: to he words and thought of all but those we start out *knowing* are
> >: right-thinking.
> >
> >No, I'm not. I'm saying that emotionally charged subjects can't be
objectively
> >studied. People are too human.
> >
> Which basically means that you think there can be no reasonable
> discussion on this issue. And, I suspect, on a host of other issues.
> Sorry, but I disagree.
So do I. To reasonably discuss an emotionally charged subject can admittedly
be very difficult, but not impossible.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are two ways to approach life: to believe everything, and to
doubt everything. Both save us from thinking." -- Alfred Korzybsky
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Rafael
>
> In article <35F68138...@nyct.net>, Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
> >I didn't argue the DH is wrong. I argued that it is unacceptable within
> >the framework of Judaism. Rembember: opposing assumptions.
>
> If you desire to make this argument on behalf of Orthodox Judaism, and
> if the other proponents of that group do not disagree, then that is
> fine. But since "Judaism" is a broader religion than Orthodoxy
> regardless of O's claims, you do not have the right to speak on its
> behalf.
If the movements of the past 180 years have the "right" to rebel against
classical Jewish practice and belief, yet still arrogate to itself the
claim of "Judaism," then I certainly have the "right" to deny them that
claim.
The overwhelming majority of Jews in the world acknowledge the
> likelihood that the Torah did not come to be in the manner you claim,
> and the overwhelming majority of affiliated Jews in the world belong to
> congregations which do not accept your interpretation of Jewish dogma.
The "overwhelming majority of Jews" is assimilating itself out of
existence. Alas, such is the historical trend, that "the survivors
among you will be few in number, all because you did not obey God your
Lord" (Deut 28:62).
Rafael
Robert Kaiser
hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) says:
>: That's just it. Orthodox Jews come to accept the Documentary
>: Hypotheis all the time. But as soon as they do, it is then claimed that
>: they are no longer Orthodox. Then you claim that no Orthodox Jews accept
>: the Documentary Hypothesis. Perfectly circular...
>C claims that a Jew who converts to Xianity is no longer a Jew. But
>only those who accept Xianity convert Pefectly circular...
Folks, for those new to this newsgroup, please be aware that
Harry Weiss has a pathological hatred towards every Jew in the world
that is not Orthodox. This compels him to write deliberate lies about
the beliefs and practices of Conseravative and Reform Jews, which bear
little or no resemblance to reality.
For those interested in the facts, no, the Conservative movement
does _not_ consider an apostate to lose his or her status of Jewishness.
There are halakhic implications, yes, but the person is still a Jew.
Harry, once again, is simply making things up out of thin air.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
David Goldman
>Harry Weiss has a pathological hatred towards every Jew in the world
>that is not Orthodox. This compels him to write deliberate lies about
>the beliefs and practices of Conseravative and Reform Jews, which bear
>little or no resemblance to reality.
For those new to this newsgroup, please be aware that Robert Kaiser is
a fence sitter, and can't decide whether to go in the direction of
true Judaism or false sects. In the meantime he has a compulsion to
post deceptive and outright idiotic postings from the writings of the
Reformativestructionist sectarian ideologies. It's a free forum, so he
can do that, but people need to be aware of his ignorance of Torah
Judaism.
Matt Silberstein
<raf...@nyct.net>:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>> In soc.culture.jewish I read this message from Rafael
>> <raf...@nyct.net>:
>
>> >You must not be aware of RK's religious agenda.
>>
>> Nor do I care. He is presenting an idea. You can attack the man or the
>> idea but don't confuse one with the other. A person with a bad agenda
>> can say reasonable things and person with a good agenda can say false
>> things.
>
>Fine. You argue in your sphere and I'll argue in mine. Since I know
>from experience that RK would like his ideas to be validated in both
>spheres, we both a share a piece of the discussion (although perhaps not
>with eachother).
>
You seem to have forgotten the origin of this subthread. RK posted his
summary of the DH. Josh rejected part of it because it was by a
non-Jew. I objected to that. You defended that concept. Sorry, but I
don't see these separate sphere you refer to. If you actually think it
is valid to reject arguments because you do not share the religion of
the speaker say so.
[snip]
You may easily be right about the source of authority in the Talmud. I
am over my head in that argument. I will try to look up the book you
suggested.
>
>> Sorry, but it still a fallacious argument. The DH could still be right
>> and his argument from it wrong. You have to treat them distinctly. If
>> he draws conclusions from the DH you don't like, challenge that
>> argument. But do not expect to convince me that the DH is wrong
>> because RK has an agenda.
>
>I didn't argue the DH is wrong. I argued that it is unacceptable within
>the framework of Judaism. Rembember: opposing assumptions.
>
No, you argued that it was acceptable to reject what someone said
because he was not Jewish. If you want to argue that the result of the
DH is unacceptable that is a different argument. Re-read the thread.
Matt Silberstein
<raf...@nyct.net>:
><Micha will no doubt have better responses to this than I will, but I
>have a few thoughts I'd like to offer, as well.>
>
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>> In soc.culture.jewish I read this message from Micha Berger
[snip]
>
>It essentially negates the traditional claim by ignoring it and looking
>for alternative explanations for the text's origin. This reflects a
>naturalistic assumption which is consistent (if not imperative) within
>the secular academic world, but inconsistent with classical Jewish
>philosophy and law.
>
This is a much better argument against the DH than any I have seen so
far in this thread. That is exactly what I was complaining about.
Saying "Yawn" or "He is a non-Jew, ignore him" are not argument.
Challenging the underlying assumptions is a valid argument.
>> >No, I'm not. I'm saying that emotionally charged subjects can't be objectively
>> >studied. People are too human.
>> >
>> Which basically means that you think there can be no reasonable
>> discussion on this issue. And, I suspect, on a host of other issues.
>> Sorry, but I disagree.
>
>You disagree that an O Jew cannot agree to the assumptions underlying
>DH?
I disagree that you cannot make objective arguments in an emotionally
charged area. It is difficult, you have to weather lots of storms. But
you can make some headway. I do think there can be reasonable
discussion on the issue of the DH. That says nothing about accepting
any particular assumption or argument or position.