Converting
Valkris Rayna
interested in converting to Judaism. Does anyone on this list have any
suggested resources for me?
and, are there any usenet groups or e-mail lists that might be helpful?
thank you in advance,
Paula Drennan
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
Drago...@webtv.net wrote:
> Hi. I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, but i am
> interested in converting to Judaism. Does anyone on this list have any
> suggested resources for me?
> and, are there any usenet groups or e-mail lists that might be helpful?
Dear Paula Drennan,
http://www.convert.org is the Conversion to Judaism home page by Dr. Larry
Epstein. While its emphasis is Conservative, it provides information for the
other movements as well.
Good luck,
--
(Rabbi) 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
Rafael
I'm a convert myself. I don't know of any *worthwhile* resources on the
web for converts. Such a serious matter should only be dealt with
*in-person.*
Is there an Orthodox community in your area? If so, I would approach a
rabbi. Only an Orthodox conversion will be accepted by everyone.
All the best,
Rafael
Valkris Rayna wrote:
>
> Hi. I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, but i am
> interested in converting to Judaism. Does anyone on this list have any
> suggested resources for me?
> and, are there any usenet groups or e-mail lists that might be helpful?
>
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35AA018C...@nyct.net>...
>Hi Paula,
>
>I'm a convert myself. I don't know of any *worthwhile* resources on the
>web for converts. Such a serious matter should only be dealt with
>*in-person.*
>
>Is there an Orthodox community in your area? If so, I would approach a
>rabbi. Only an Orthodox conversion will be accepted by everyone.
>
>All the best,
>Rafael
>
Of course, that means you will force yourself to become a part of the
approximately 10% of Jews who are Orthodox. That may be right for you and
if it is, go that route. At the outset, however, I would not recommend
limiting your options in that manner. Be true to yourself and investigate
the other 90% as well. It should yield the path that is best for _you_
(which may, in fact, be Orthodox) and is why you are considering converting
after all, isn't it?
Shelly
Micha Berger
: Of course, that means you will force yourself to become a part of the
: approximately 10% of Jews who are Orthodox.
Shelly appears to think there are no Jews outside the US. O is a minority
globally, but the 10% figure is only true for the US. Outside of North America
where C and R have populations less than 1%, O obviously holds a larger
percentage of religious Jews.
"Force yourself"? Couldn't figure out a less emotionally loaded way of saying
it?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5863 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 13-Jul-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Gmachine9
>if it is, go that route. At the outset, however, I would not recommend
>limiting your options in that manner. Be true to yourself and investigate
>the other 90% as well
just beware--as Rafael correctly stated that only Orthodox conversions are
accepted by all "branches" of Judaism.
steve
cel...@usa.net
> At the outset, however, I would not recommend
> limiting your options in that manner. Be true to yourself and investigate
> (which may, in fact, be Orthodox) and is why you are considering converting
> after all, isn't it?
Definitely investigate all the options. I was pretty sure I knew what
movement was right for me when I started down this path; now that I've
talked to representatives of the big three (and attended services at
half a dozen shuls), that initial assumption isn't so clearly right
any more. Don't limit yourself.
Also, there is no reason you have to choose a single movement and never
talk to the others again. I expect to pursue a conversion in one movement
while attending classes and (some) services from the other two, because
there are things all of them can offer me. I don't know *nearly* enough
yet to be ruling anyone out. And I, at least, have found the rabbis
involved to be fairly encouraging of this sort of exploration.
Monica
"cellio <at> pobox <dot> com", NOT the posting address!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Sheldon Glickler
Gmachine9 wrote in message
<199807131821...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Of course, that means you will force yourself to become a part of the
>>approximately 10% of Jews who are Orthodox. That may be right for you and
>>limiting your options in that manner. Be true to yourself and investigate
>
>just beware--as Rafael correctly stated that only Orthodox conversions are
>accepted by all "branches" of Judaism.
>
.....and when you invite people to your home make sure that all you serve are
vegetables that have been organically grown and harvested without machines
that use gasoline (that pollutes the air) and, etc. etc. When they say
something with you disagree be sure not to vocalize those objections. Etc,
etc.
After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
To quote the bard, "To thine own self be true".
Shelly
J. Olson
On 13 Jul 1998, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:10:55 -0400, Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : Of course, that means you will force yourself to become a part of the
> : approximately 10% of Jews who are Orthodox.
>
> "Force yourself"? Couldn't figure out a less emotionally loaded way of saying
> it?
Not only that, but I really think Shelly is overstating his case...I know
more than one person who converted Orthodox, and I know that they don't
have the feeling that they are "forced" to do anything...however much of a
surprise this may come to Shelly, many people find living an Orthodox
lifestyle a positive choice and privledge, rather than submission to
coersion.
Jess
J. Olson
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
>
> To quote the bard, "To thine own self be true".
>
> Shelly
Also a good point.
Jess
Gmachine9
>.....and when you invite people to your home make sure that all you serve are
>vegetables that have been organically grown and harvested without machines
>that use gasoline (that pollutes the air) and, etc. etc. When they say
>something with you disagree be sure not to vocalize those objections. Etc,
>etc.
There is a big difference here Shelly. The non-acceptance here has possible
reprecussions (sp?) down the line. A potential convert may not realize that a
certain percentage of Jews will not accept his/her conversion and therefore not
marry there child, etc. I believe that is a legitimate concern.
>After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
>
Is this a tag or an argument. I happen to accept most people. but im pretty
sure that I dont have to accept as Jewish, jews who are not.
steve
Valkris Rayna
to this group or in private, so far. all of you have been very halpful.
the closest congregation to me (50miles) is a REform congregation. I
have attended services there once or twice and I am very comfortable
with the Rabbi there. I will most likely be going thru that Temple for
conversion.
I will be looking into as many options as are out there. Is there anyone
on here who is familiar with congregations in the San Antonio/Austin TX
area? I live about 1 1/2 miles outside of New Braunfels, wich puts me
about half way between those two major cities.
Again, thank you all for your help and offers of support.
Paula Drennan
Nathanael Robinson
Such a serious matter should only be dealt with
> *in-person.*
>
> Is there an Orthodox community in your area? If so, I would approach a
> rabbi. Only an Orthodox conversion will be accepted by everyone.
>
> All the best,
> Rafael
Ultimately, the best resource you will have is the community into which
you will integrate. BTW, don't neglect looking at Sephardic
authorities.
NR
--
'"You try to be free through writing. How wrong.
Every word unveils another tie."'
--Edmond Jabes
Simcha Streltsov
: On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Sheldon Glickler wrote:
: > After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
: Also a good point.
and that is actually an established Jewish view -
you dont really have to become a Jew, you can fulfill
G-d's will in your current status
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Zev Sero
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Drago...@webtv.net (Valkris Rayna) wrote:
>the closest congregation to me (50miles) is a REform congregation.
but then...
>I will be looking into as many options as are out there. Is there anyone
>on here who is familiar with congregations in the San Antonio/Austin TX
>area? I live about 1 1/2 miles outside of New Braunfels, wich puts me
>about half way between those two major cities.
There are Orthodox congregations in both Austin and San Antonio, i.e. no
further from you than the 50 miles that you say the Reform congregation
is (IIRC, the distance between the two cities is about 80 miles).
In Austin, you can contact Rabbi Levertov, on Nueces near UT. Look in
the Austin phone directory. In San Antonio, I think the shul is called
Rodef Sholom; they've got a web page, so you can search for it.
--
Zev Sero Programming: the art of debugging an empty text file
zs...@bigfoot.com
Sheldon Glickler
J. Olson wrote in message ...
My turn to clarify. Micha, you used a much to literal reading of "force".
(remember "suicide"). By "force" here, I was stating that this restricts
your view of Judaism to that held by only 10% of the world's Jews. It was
not used in "coercive" sense. Read my other posts on this thread and you
will see that you read a meaning I did not intend.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
Valkris Rayna wrote in message
<14009-35...@newsd-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
I would like to thank all that have posted helpful information, either
to this group or in private, so far. all of you have been very halpful.
the closest congregation to me (50miles) is a REform congregation. I
have attended services there once or twice and I am very comfortable
with the Rabbi there. I will most likely be going thru that Temple for
conversion.
I will be looking into as many options as are out there. Is there anyone
on here who is familiar with congregations in the San Antonio/Austin TX
area? I live about 1 1/2 miles outside of New Braunfels, wich puts me
about half way between those two major cities.
Again, thank you all for your help and offers of support.
Paula Drennan
==========================================================================
For some reason, my news reader did not put ">" in the original so I have
enclosed it above.
I am happy that you found a congregation and rabbi whith whom you are
comfortable. As an outspoken _Reform_ Jew, I would still encourage you to
investigate all the branches and speak to rabbis from each.
Shelly
Jonathan J. Baker
>I would like to thank all that have posted helpful information, either
>to this group or in private, so far. all of you have been very halpful.
>the closest congregation to me (50miles) is a REform congregation. I
>have attended services there once or twice and I am very comfortable
>with the Rabbi there. I will most likely be going thru that Temple for
>conversion.
>I will be looking into as many options as are out there. Is there anyone
>on here who is familiar with congregations in the San Antonio/Austin TX
>area? I live about 1 1/2 miles outside of New Braunfels, wich puts me
>about half way between those two major cities.
Huh? San Antone - Austin is only about 75 miles. New Braunfels, I
see on the map, is 32 mi from downtown S-A. The Orthodox synagogue
is just of NW Military Drive somewhere between 410 and L1604 in the
northwest part of town, so you can't be more than about 30 miles
from there. Don't worry about having to drive, the rabbi there is
used to that, most of the congregation drives, although more & more
are moving into the subdivision across the road from the synagogue.
Debbie & I spent a very pleasant shabbat with some people from the
Orthodox synagogue when we were in S-A for a medical thing.
Here's the info:
Rodfei Sholom Congregation
3003 Sholom Dr
San Antonio, TX 78230-5400
Phone: (210)493-3557
Rabbi A. Scheinberg
Sholom Dr. is off NW Military (Fm 1535), about 2 miles south of the
1604 loop.
There's also a Conservative synagogue, Agudas Achim, listed at
1201 Donaldson Ave, (210) 736-4216. Rabbi S. Spiegel.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Rafael
> After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
>
> To quote the bard, "To thine own self be true".
Why am I not surprised that you had to draw from non-Jewish source to
support your advice?
Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35AB3724...@nyct.net>...
Why am I not surprised that you do not value any source that is not Jewish,
even from one generally recognized as the greatest playwrite of all time?
Why am I not surprised that I predicted [to myself when writing it] that you
would respond in this fashion?
Why am I not surprised by your completely closed mind to anything that is
not Orthodox Judaism?
Shelly
>
>Rafael
a...@wynn.com
decision. You have chosen wisley, yet you have a long and sometimes bumpy
road untill you reach your goal. We have found that there are many books
available to help cushion any "bumps" and give you a solid source to which
you can refer to again and again.
Among the popular choices are the following:
Migrant Soul By: Avi Schafern. A poingnant story of an American Ger
(convert) and his experience of conversion. (16.50)
Jewish Conversion By: Rabbi Joel Schwartz. A guide of the process of Jewish
conversion, its meaning and laws. (10.95)
The Laws of Kashrus By: Rabbi Binyomin Forst. A comprehensive exposition
of their underlying concepts and applications. Included is an alphabetical
listing of over one hundred items found in the modern kitchen, with
guidelines on how to avoid problems. (22.99)
The Magic of Shabbos By: Rabbi Mordechai Rhine. This book is intended to
introduce the beauty of Shabbos. It is most useful as a starting point, as a
tool for spiritual growth. Perhaps you’ve yearned to know more about the
meaning of candle lighting or how to recite kiddush. Or you’ve wondered what
exactly happens in the synagogue service and why. Each section of this book
is divided to one aspect of the Shabbos experience and will guide you through
it one step at a time. No matter what level of observance you are accustomed
to, this book will assist you in bringing the joy of Shabbos into your like.
Come, hold to my hand and journey through Shabbos with me. (12.50)
In article <11345-35...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Drago...@webtv.net (Valkris Rayna) wrote:
> Hi. I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, but i am
> interested in converting to Judaism. Does anyone on this list have any
> suggested resources for me?
> and, are there any usenet groups or e-mail lists that might be helpful?
>
> thank you in advance,
> Paula Drennan
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Giora Drachsler
I used to think that the Otrhodox were a big pain in the neck. Now I
have a much lower opinion of them.
--
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Gmachine9
>have a much lower opinion of them.
>
>
i am sorry that you feel that way. After all,if you cut us do we not bleed?
steve
Rafael
via this antisemitic remark:
Giora Drachsler wrote:
>
> Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> >
> > Rafael wrote in message <35AB3724...@nyct.net>...
> > >Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> > >
> > >> After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
> > >> To quote the bard, "To thine own self be true".
> > >
> > >Why am I not surprised that you had to draw from non-Jewish source to
> > >support your advice?
> >
> > Why am I not surprised that you do not value any source that is not Jewish,
> > even from one generally recognized as the greatest playwrite of all time?
> >
> > Why am I not surprised that I predicted [to myself when writing it] that you
> > would respond in this fashion?
> >
> > Why am I not surprised by your completely closed mind to anything that is
> > not Orthodox Judaism?
> I used to think that the Otrhodox were a big pain in the neck. Now I
> have a much lower opinion of them.
Shelly, I'm not at all closed-minded to anything non-O. I live and work
in NYC and am exposed daily to the marketplace of ideas (here on SCJ, as
well), which I confront, consider, and decide upon regularly (not to
mention that I only became O a few years ago).
"To thine own self be true" may not be deductively false, but in can
certainly be misleading in the Jewish context (in which I believe our
discussion is taking place). If a convert approaches Judaism with
maxims floating around in her head that don't necessarily apply to the
subject at hand, she will either never discover what she is looking for
or she will be very turned off when she finds it. As such, it would be
much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
you die.")
Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
succeeding bad-taste reply, simply cut out his/her byline and what he/she
wrote. All that would be left would be mine with an extra ">".
Rafael wrote in message <35AC87B0...@nyct.net>...
We differ here. One (IMO) must _always_ be true to him/herself.
>discussion is taking place). If a convert approaches Judaism with
>maxims floating around in her head that don't necessarily apply to the
>subject at hand, she will either never discover what she is looking for
That, again, is by _YOUR_ definition. It is not the _GENERAL_ definition.
There are more converts to Judaism in this world, Rafael, than are
considered in your philosophy (-- to once again sort-of borrow from the
bard).
>or she will be very turned off when she finds it. As such, it would be
This is an unwarranted assumption. It _may_ be true, but certainly doesn't
qualify for "will".
>much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was exclusionary
rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
>Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
>you die.")
Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
Shelly
Rafael
>
> Before starting, let me comment. If you wanted to reply to me without the
> succeeding bad-taste reply, simply cut out his/her byline and what he/she
> wrote. All that would be left would be mine with an extra ">".
I guess I wanted you to see what you bring out in people :-)
> Rafael wrote in message <35AC87B0...@nyct.net>...
> >"To thine own self be true" may not be deductively false, but in can
> >certainly be misleading in the Jewish context (in which I believe our
>
> We differ here. One (IMO) must _always_ be true to him/herself.
What is the self? The self can be *self*-delusionary. One cannot often
rely on oneself--that's why we look to others, to God.
In the case of one who pursues the Jewish approach to truth-finding, I
would say "Be true to God's Torah." That's because Judaism historically
treats the halakhic system as objective. Only one's relationship with
that system is subjective.
> >discussion is taking place). If a convert approaches Judaism with
> >maxims floating around in her head that don't necessarily apply to the
> >subject at hand, she will either never discover what she is looking for
>
> That, again, is by _YOUR_ definition. It is not the _GENERAL_ definition.
> There are more converts to Judaism in this world, Rafael, than are
> considered in your philosophy (-- to once again sort-of borrow from the
> bard).
Converts to what?
> Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was exclusionary
> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
No, it did not. See above and below.
> >Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
> >you die.")
>
> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
That's very Western of you. Now please show me where our Torah tradition
says likewise. [Who knows? You might just find it. Of course, if you
never look, you can hardly claim to be a qualified spokesperson for
Judaism (which is based on the Torah, you know).]
Rafael
Y...@my-dejanews.com
"Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
> >much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
>
> Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was exclusionary
> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
>
> >Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
> >you die.")
>
> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
Shelly, you're being (unintentionally, I believe) offensive. These are Jewish
Sages we're talking about. Whatever opinion you may hold about how informed
they were, they were not stupid, and not prone to uttering nonsense, much less
recording it.
When I see a quotation from the Chazal that doesn't make sense, I explore the
following possibilities:
1) It was not translated correctly, or was otherwise garbled in transmission.
2) It is out of context ("Kill the best of Gentiles" is a good example.)
3) The definition of the terms used in the quotation is different from the one
I'm using.
I then ask for clarification or look it up myself. This method usually works
pretty well. Why don't you two define what you mean by "belief in yourself"?
Hint: does it have something to do with self-esteem?
Regards,
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35ACAEE4...@nyct.net>...
>Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>>
>> Before starting, let me comment. If you wanted to reply to me without
the
>> succeeding bad-taste reply, simply cut out his/her byline and what he/she
>> wrote. All that would be left would be mine with an extra ">".
>
>I guess I wanted you to see what you bring out in people :-)
Do you _really_ want to play that game? I'll take the smiley as I believe
you intended it.
>
>> Rafael wrote in message <35AC87B0...@nyct.net>...
>
>> >"To thine own self be true" may not be deductively false, but in can
>> >certainly be misleading in the Jewish context (in which I believe our
>>
>> We differ here. One (IMO) must _always_ be true to him/herself.
>
>What is the self? The self can be *self*-delusionary. One cannot often
>rely on oneself--that's why we look to others, to God.
>
>In the case of one who pursues the Jewish approach to truth-finding, I
>would say "Be true to God's Torah." That's because Judaism historically
>treats the halakhic system as objective. Only one's relationship with
>that system is subjective.
No sense even pursuing that one. It will lead nowhere.
>
>> >discussion is taking place). If a convert approaches Judaism with
>> >maxims floating around in her head that don't necessarily apply to the
>> >subject at hand, she will either never discover what she is looking for
>>
>> That, again, is by _YOUR_ definition. It is not the _GENERAL_
definition.
>> There are more converts to Judaism in this world, Rafael, than are
>> considered in your philosophy (-- to once again sort-of borrow from the
>> bard).
>
>Converts to what?
Read above.
>
>> Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was
exclusionary
>> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
>
>No, it did not. See above and below.
Shall I produce it? Effectively you said, "convert only to O because only
by doing that will you be recognized by all Jews. What you didn't say was
convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews and
convert to R and you will be (effectively) recognized by almost as much.
Further, and most important, you didn't include the main criterion -- why
the person wants to convert may be totally inconsistent with O but may be
more in tune with C or R. Your answer, of course, is "don't convert". That
is what I meant by exclusionary.
>
>> >Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
>> >you die.")
>>
>> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
>
>That's very Western of you. Now please show me where our Torah tradition
Once again, we use different yardsticks. Mine is the belief and practice of
the vast majority of the worlds Jews. I don't accept your yardstick just as
much as you don't accept mine. We can leave it at that as we will never
convince the other. However, realize that I don't accept playing by your
rules to determine proper procedure so you can't "win" an argument by
showing it doesn't match with your criterea.
>says likewise. [Who knows? You might just find it. Of course, if you
>never look, you can hardly claim to be a qualified spokesperson for
>Judaism (which is based on the Torah, you know).]
We differ in what we mean by "based on" -- as you know.
Shelly
Colin Rosenthal
Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
I'm not sure I believe this figure.
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
Rafael
> Shall I produce it? Effectively you said, "convert only to O because only
> by doing that will you be recognized by all Jews. What you didn't say was
> convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews and
> convert to R and you will be (effectively) recognized by almost as much.
> Further, and most important, you didn't include the main criterion -- why
> the person wants to convert may be totally inconsistent with O but may be
> more in tune with C or R. Your answer, of course, is "don't convert". That
> is what I meant by exclusionary.
If your going back to the numbers game, I might point out that,
statistically speaking, in several generations, her (O) children would
most likely be recognized by the vast majority of Jews (but that's about
as meaningful to you as your numbers are to me).
> Once again, we use different yardsticks. Mine is the belief and practice of
> the vast majority of the worlds Jews. I don't accept your yardstick just as
> much as you don't accept mine. We can leave it at that as we will never
> convince the other. However, realize that I don't accept playing by your
> rules to determine proper procedure so you can't "win" an argument by
> showing it doesn't match with your criterea.
Your "vast majority" statement is false, but putting that aside, you're
right about convincing one another.
I might point out, however, that I have a distinct advantage over you,
in that I've been at your knowledge level of Judaism before, whereas you
have never been at mine (unless you have amnesia). IOW, you don't know
what Judaism is, so your rejection of it is meaningless to anyone who
has ever seriously studied it.
It's like when my 18-month-old daughter calls an "ear" a "nose." It's
cute for now, but I sincerely hope she'll grow out of it. (As a child,
she thankfully still has an open mind.)
Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
>In article <6oike4$j...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
> "Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
>>
exclusionary
>> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
>>
>> >you die.")
>>
>> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
>
Jewish
>Sages we're talking about. Whatever opinion you may hold about how informed
>they were, they were not stupid, and not prone to uttering nonsense, much
less
>recording it.
>
>When I see a quotation from the Chazal that doesn't make sense, I explore
the
>following possibilities:
>
>1) It was not translated correctly, or was otherwise garbled in
transmission.
>2) It is out of context ("Kill the best of Gentiles" is a good example.)
>3) The definition of the terms used in the quotation is different from the
one
>I'm using.
>
>I then ask for clarification or look it up myself. This method usually
works
>pretty well. Why don't you two define what you mean by "belief in
yourself"?
>Hint: does it have something to do with self-esteem?
My statement of nonsense refers the quote. It it contrary to everything I
believe (as I understand it from the context of the discussion we were
having). Yes, it has everything to do with self-esteem, belief in what you
are doing is right and proper and having the confidence to follow through.
To defer that kind of belief to "a higher authority" to say "do this, now do
that, etc." is how I would view a slave -- not an independent, thinking
human being.
You fully grasped what I meant by this, perhaps because of our extensive
conversations. I think that he did as well.
Lastly, when a sage said something I consider nonsense, that doesn't change
the evaluation because he was a "sage". [OK Richard, make your cracks. I
can see them coming].
Shelly
P&M
Sheldon Glickler
Since your definition is self-fulfilling (knowledge means deep study of
Talmud and Torah, I can hardly argue with you. Clearly you have studied the
classical texts far more than I have. However, as I said before, I won't
submit to your yardstick. I have spent considerable periods (at least 15
years) in each arena (though not chassid). I started out keeping kosher
until age 17 and belonged to an Orthodox synagogue. I went to a camp run by
a Yeshiva for parts of five summers. I belonged to a Conservative synagogue
for 15 years and as long in a Reform synagogue. Over the course of that
period, from after-school Talmud Torah to life experience and learning until
now, I have different knowledge of Judaism. Your saying that you have been
"at my knowledge level" from your viewpoint is then accurate. However, it
is not from mine.
>
>It's like when my 18-month-old daughter calls an "ear" a "nose." It's
>cute for now, but I sincerely hope she'll grow out of it. (As a child,
>she thankfully still has an open mind.)
>
>Rafael
Now if you want to continue in an polite and civil manner, fine. If you
want to assume a condescending posture, then I will withdraw as I have
already been through one such nasty experience and have no desire for
another.
Shelly
P&M
Colin Rosenthal
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>OW, you don't know
>what Judaism is, so your rejection of it is meaningless to anyone who
>has ever seriously studied it.
However surely one might say the same for _your_ rejection of - depending
on your personal circumstances - Islam, Buddhism, Astrology, UFOology,
trad jazz ........
Binyamin Dissen
:>On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:40:35 -0400,
:>Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>>convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
:>I'm not sure I believe this figure.
If one limits oneself to marriage, I would guess that 90+% of the set that
accepts reformed conversions would also be in the set of not caring at all if
the potential mate had converted (though it may not even hit 50% in the
parents or relatives of the truly Jewish side).
--
Binyami...@theoffice.net
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
rafael
>
> On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:14:09 GMT,
> Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
> >OW, you don't know
> >what Judaism is, so your rejection of it is meaningless to anyone who
> >has ever seriously studied it.
>
> However surely one might say the same for _your_ rejection of - depending
> on your personal circumstances - Islam, Buddhism, Astrology, UFOology,
> trad jazz ........
The difference is that I don't claim to be practicing any of these.
[Imagine my getting on alt.religion.islam and telling them that what
they call Islam is fine for them, but it's not what I consider Islam
(even though I know relatively little about it). They may just ignore
me, but I think I'd watch my back for a while.]
Rafael
rafael
> Since your definition is self-fulfilling (knowledge means deep study of
> Talmud and Torah, I can hardly argue with you. Clearly you have
<resume deleted>
> until
> now, I have different knowledge of Judaism. Your saying that you have been
> "at my knowledge level" from your viewpoint is then accurate. However, it
> is not from mine.
Fine. I can't stop you from calling cats dogs, hotdogs hamburgers, and
pop-Western-philosophy Judaism. I guess this is an inevitable result of
being a nation as well as a religion, in a host country that welcomes
us, at the cost of millions of Jewish souls.
> Now if you want to continue in an polite and civil manner, fine. If you
> want to assume a condescending posture, then I will withdraw as I have
> already been through one such nasty experience and have no desire for
> another.
Nasty? Try telling a religious Muslim that you practice Islam and that
it's just as valid an Islam as what he's practicing. See how he reacts.
Rafael
Richard Schultz
: Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
converted to C?".
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
jord...@my-dejanews.com
Rather, a R jew is more similar to a Protestant who is telling his
Catholic brothers that he is still a Christian. A schism (or two, or
three or four) has already happened within the Jewish people; the question
is now how should we live with it, how should people deal with those
who are on the other side of the ideological divide.
>
> Rafael
>
Jordi
Les Brown
>I used to think that the Otrhodox were a big pain in the neck. Now I
>have a much lower opinion of them.
>--
That must've been the treif you ate.
You really should keep kosher. It's far healthier
Les Brown
Les Brown
Rafael
> Rather, a R jew is more similar to a Protestant who is telling his
> Catholic brothers that he is still a Christian. A schism (or two, or
> three or four) has already happened within the Jewish people; the question
> is now how should we live with it, how should people deal with those
> who are on the other side of the ideological divide.
While I believe that R has adopted many Protestant criteria, I don't
believe they work in the Jewish context. Judaism is unique.
The question of how a Jew deals with a non-observant Jew has been
addressed for millenia and is part of the halakhic system. Some of us
just let our emotions get the best of us.
Rafael
Colin Rosenthal
>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>: Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
>
>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
>
>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>converted to C?".
Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
multiply by 5/9.
Richard Schultz
: Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
: multiply by 5/9.
That depends on what you're converting *from*. . .
Sheldon Glickler
Colin Rosenthal wrote in message <6ol58s$bd6$1...@ncar.ucar.edu>...
>On 16 Jul 1998 06:32:55 GMT,
>Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>: Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
>>
>>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
>>
>>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>>converted to C?".
>
>multiply by 5/9.
>
Fantastic!!! ROTFL three times over!!!
Shelly
jord...@my-dejanews.com
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Rather, a R jew is more similar to a Protestant who is telling his
> > Catholic brothers that he is still a Christian. A schism (or two, or
> > three or four) has already happened within the Jewish people; the question
> > is now how should we live with it, how should people deal with those
> > who are on the other side of the ideological divide.
>
> While I believe that R has adopted many Protestant criteria, I don't
> believe they work in the Jewish context. Judaism is unique.
Rafael, that was not the sense I meant to use in my comparison. Rather,
R sees itself as an authentic branch of Judaism, somewhat like Protestantism
often sees itself as a branch of Christianity. Similarly to the way that
Protestantism disagrees with a number of Catholic rituals (which it sees
as outdated, etc.), so R sees some of the ritual aspects of traditional
Judaism as no longer necessarily valid. At no point am I equating
Protestantism and Reform, altough I agree that Reform has taken some
inspiration from Protestantism... and that's OK.
I do believe that R works in a Jewish context, for its holy texts are
the Jewish ones, its celebrations (circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings,
etc.) are the Jewish ones, etc. Only Jews celebrate the Passover Seder; only
Jews fast on Yom Kippur; only Jews light the Shabbat candles.
>
> The question of how a Jew deals with a non-observant Jew has been
> addressed for millenia and is part of the halakhic system. Some of us
However, it is not obvious that R is equivalent with non-observance.
> just let our emotions get the best of us.
I can see that.
Simcha Streltsov
: Catholic brothers that he is still a Christian. A schism (or two, or
: three or four) has already happened within the Jewish people; the question
: is now how should we live with it, how should people deal with those
: who are on the other side of the ideological divide.
you are right, and we should look at previous schisms to see how
to deal with the current ones. Maybe someone else knows, but I dont
know about halachot that are a compromise between Prushim and Tzedukim,
otherwise, I think Mishna Megilah ends with lists of cases when we
stop or do not stop someone when he deviates from the usual practice -
i.e. makes changes in the prayer
I believe the principle is that if he is simply mistaken, it is not a big
deal, but if he is following tzdukim, we do stop him.
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Rafael
> Rafael, that was not the sense I meant to use in my comparison. Rather,
> R sees itself as an authentic branch of Judaism, somewhat like Protestantism
> often sees itself as a branch of Christianity.
> Similarly to the way that
> Protestantism disagrees with a number of Catholic rituals (which it sees
> as outdated, etc.), so R sees some of the ritual aspects of traditional
> Judaism as no longer necessarily valid. At no point am I equating
> Protestantism and Reform, altough I agree that Reform has taken some
> inspiration from Protestantism... and that's OK.
We're saying similar things, only I'm saying it's not OK for Jews to
measure the Torah with a Xian yardstick. While Xians claim the New
Testament to be a *record* of miraculous revelations (i.e a man-made
document), for Jews, the Torah IS the revelation.
Also, there are qualities of Judaism that distinguish it from ALL other
religions:
(1) we are the only religion that is also a nation;
(2) as such, we are the only religion that is eternally linked to a
particular national homeland; and
(3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
people)
Furthermore, while various sects have arisen over the ages, who have
challenged the Oral Torah that necessarily accompanied the Written
Torah, they are today absent from the Jewish world. In making the
changes it has, the liberal movements have taken their place amongst
these sectarian forbears: the Sadducees, Balthusians, Essenes, Karaites,
and early Xians. If this historical trend continues (and the statistics
show that it is), then divisiveness and assimilation is the formula you
recommend for our people.
> I do believe that R works in a Jewish context, for its holy texts are
> the Jewish ones, its celebrations (circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings,
> etc.) are the Jewish ones, etc. Only Jews celebrate the Passover Seder; only
> Jews fast on Yom Kippur; only Jews light the Shabbat candles.
My understanding is that Jews for Jesus also do these things, but
outside their Halakhah context, they are hallow customs, which again
accounts for the mass exodus of non-O Jews away from anything Jewish.
> However, it is not obvious that R is equivalent with non-observance.
From the halakhic standpoint, it is.
The best that classical thinkers can say for R is that it retards the
rate of intermarriage. It does, but it is still over 50% (compared to
3% amongst O). Their answer to the this marketing dilemma is to declare
the children of all these forbidden unions Jewish, which is unacceptable
to anyone but themselves. This type of universalism hearkens back to
Paul of Tarsus.
Rafael
Harvey S. Cohen
>>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>>converted to C?".
>rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>multiply by 5/9.
This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
--
harve...@home.foo.com (Harvey S. Cohen)
(Remove foo to reply)
jord...@my-dejanews.com
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Rafael, that was not the sense I meant to use in my comparison. Rather,
> > R sees itself as an authentic branch of Judaism, somewhat like Protestantism
> > often sees itself as a branch of Christianity.
> > Similarly to the way that
> > Protestantism disagrees with a number of Catholic rituals (which it sees
> > as outdated, etc.), so R sees some of the ritual aspects of traditional
> > Judaism as no longer necessarily valid. At no point am I equating
> > Protestantism and Reform, altough I agree that Reform has taken some
> > inspiration from Protestantism... and that's OK.
>
> We're saying similar things, only I'm saying it's not OK for Jews to
> measure the Torah with a Xian yardstick. While Xians claim the New
> Testament to be a *record* of miraculous revelations (i.e a man-made
> document), for Jews, the Torah IS the revelation.
For the record, I am not using a Christian yardstick, but a secular one.
For many Jews, the Torah IS NO LONGER TO BE SEEN AS THE DIRECT
WORD OF GOD. Why? We don't believe in miracles, that's all.
>
> Also, there are qualities of Judaism that distinguish it from ALL other
> religions:
>
> (1) we are the only religion that is also a nation;
I never claimed otherwise. As for R, the Miami declaration agrees with
you.
http://ccarnet.org/platforms/miami.html
> (2) as such, we are the only religion that is eternally linked to a
> particular national homeland; and
Never claimed otherwise. As for R, check the same document.
> (3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
> simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
> people)
... that is if you believe the traditional text is historically accurate.
Anyway, see the same document, once more. Incidentally, unless one
talks about gilgul and so forth, what you say does not apply to converts.
>
> Furthermore, while various sects have arisen over the ages, who have
> challenged the Oral Torah that necessarily accompanied the Written
> Torah, they are today absent from the Jewish world. In making the
> changes it has, the liberal movements have taken their place amongst
> these sectarian forbears: the Sadducees, Balthusians, Essenes, Karaites,
> and early Xians. If this historical trend continues (and the statistics
> show that it is), then divisiveness and assimilation is the formula you
> recommend for our people.
But R doesn't reject the Oral Torah. From the Centenary Platform
http://ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html :
3.Torah -- Torah results from the relationship between God and the
Jewish people. The records of our earliest confrontations are uniquely
important to us. Lawgivers and prophets, historians and poets gave us a
heritage whose study is a religious imperative and whose practice is
our chief means to holiness. Rabbis and teachers, philosophers and
mystics, gifted Jews in every age amplified the Torah tradition. For
millennia, the creation of Torah has not ceased and Jewish creativity
in our time is adding to the chain of tradition.
>
> > I do believe that R works in a Jewish context, for its holy texts are
> > the Jewish ones, its celebrations (circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings,
> > etc.) are the Jewish ones, etc. Only Jews celebrate the Passover Seder; only
> > Jews fast on Yom Kippur; only Jews light the Shabbat candles.
>
> My understanding is that Jews for Jesus also do these things, but
> outside their Halakhah context, they are hallow customs, which again
> accounts for the mass exodus of non-O Jews away from anything Jewish.
Wrong. For J4J, the main holy text is the NT, not the Tanach. R utterly,
absolutely rejects the NT and its related literature.
>
> > However, it is not obvious that R is equivalent with non-observance.
>
> From the halakhic standpoint, it is.
Non-obsevance would entail not doing anything at all. High holiday
celebrations, etc. ought to count towards one's observance, shouldn't
they?
>
> The best that classical thinkers can say for R is that it retards the
> rate of intermarriage. It does, but it is still over 50% (compared to
And which classical thinkers would these be? Spinoza, Freud, Kafka
and Levi-Strauss? ;0)
> 3% amongst O). Their answer to the this marketing dilemma is to declare
> the children of all these forbidden unions Jewish, which is unacceptable
> to anyone but themselves. This type of universalism hearkens back to
> Paul of Tarsus.
Nu? Paul doesn't deal with this issue at all. Children are not born
Christian, but need to be baptised.
As for patrilineal descent, I think R should perform child conversions
instead, in order to avoid this issue.
Sheldon Glickler
Harvey S. Cohen wrote in message <35b967fc.156157731@news>...
Yeah, for him you have to add 273 to the result.
Shelly
Tina Anderson
: >rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
: >multiply by 5/9.
: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
...Kelvin?...
--
-----
Chana Sarah bat Margalit v'Avraham
tandersn at freenet dot columbus dot oh dot us
Madison Finch
> ===> FWIW, many seventh day adventists and other christian branches
> celebrate Jewish holidays, mainly Passover. 7th day types keep
> saturday as their sabbath, say brochos, and keep *kosher*.
>
> Randy
Thought I would put in my two cents' worth about coversion from one
still involved in the process after eight months, to illustrate the
difficulties in deciding which "branch" to choose.
I am a former Seventh-Day Adventist, and my husband is a former secular
humanist. After years of thought and discussion, we made a commitment
to convert our family (which includes three children) to Judaism. I
preferred an Orthodox conversion, because (a) such a conversion *does*
has the greatest recognition, (b) I am very concerned about
assimilation, (c) it is my understanding that C and R also require a
thorough understanding of halacha, and this seemed to be the best way to
learn, and (d) a variety of personal and spiritual reasons. My husband,
however, preferred Reform (a choice which would also be more palatable
to his secular humanist parents), due in large part to his perception of
the way in which Orthodoxy views women. I spoke to the O rabbi about
this issue at the outset and was surprised when he did not treat this as
the major stumbling block I thought it would be.
I attended shul and pursued the course of study my rabbi assigned to me
for many months, until I had some questions about kol isha and called to
make an appointment. The rabbi flatly refused to see me, apparently
based on my husband's non-attendance. Emotionally wrenching, but
understandable. So we are again back at square one in our conversion.
It would appear that the only solution is a Reform conversion for the
entire family, and I am trying not to regard this as compromising for
myself. After all, under Reform, I am certainly free to choose to
practice an Orthodox level of observance--except that, in the eyes of
most others keeping those practices, I won't be a Jew at all.
Because this thread is under the heading of "Converting," I thought you
might like to hear something of how the O-C-R situation looks from the
outside, to prospective converts.
Madison
Randy B
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>
>I do believe that R works in a Jewish context, for its holy texts are
>the Jewish ones, its celebrations (circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings,
>etc.) are the Jewish ones, etc. Only Jews celebrate the Passover Seder; only
>Jews fast on Yom Kippur; only Jews light the Shabbat candles.
===> FWIW, many seventh day adventists and other christian branches
Colin Rosenthal
>Harvey S. Cohen (harve...@home.foo.com) wrote:
>: >rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>: >multiply by 5/9.
>
>: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
>
>...Kelvin?...
Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
rafael
> For the record, I am not using a Christian yardstick, but a secular one.
> For many Jews, the Torah IS NO LONGER TO BE SEEN AS THE DIRECT
> WORD OF GOD. Why? We don't believe in miracles, that's all.
But Judaism has been founded on the concept of miracles for thousands of
years. Why do you now come along and tell us that one can strip away the
religion's historic core and still be left with the same entity? This is
what the Xians did, as well as the other defunct sects that rejected the
Oral Torah. It's a time-proven recipe for assimilation and
self-destruction.
> I never claimed otherwise. As for R, the Miami declaration agrees with
> you.
> http://ccarnet.org/platforms/miami.html
Now they do.
> > (2) as such, we are the only religion that is eternally linked to a
> > particular national homeland; and
>
> Never claimed otherwise. As for R, check the same document.
Now they do. (Berlin used to be the "New Jerusalem.")
> > (3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
> > simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
> > people)
>
> ... that is if you believe the traditional text is historically accurate.
No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
the past 3,300 years.
Why is it that no other religion has ever made this claim? It's a very
strong one. The normal formula for a religion is that one or two people
claim to have privately communed with a higher power or spiritual
energy, and people believe them.
Not so with us. We believe because our parents, grandparents,
great-grandparents, etc. all relate the same miraculous event witnessed
by our nation's ancestors at Sinai (see Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah,
ch.8). No other religion claims national prophecy, as they would have
never gotten away with it (which is why Xianity, Islam, and others
"borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims. Can you imagine if the
Pope got up one day and announced to the world that, 100 years ago, all
Italians witnessed a revelation from God. Do you think the Italians
would believe him, without having ever heard a word about it from their
parents and grandparents?)
> Anyway, see the same document, once more. Incidentally, unless one
> talks about gilgul and so forth, what you say does not apply to converts.
Halakhically, converts become the offspring of Abraham and Sara, but
there is a mystical opinion, among others, about their souls having been
at Sinai.
> But R doesn't reject the Oral Torah. From the Centenary Platform
> http://ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html :
<delete>
No. The Oral Torah (Torah She'bal peh) are those lessons taught orally
to Moses by God but not written. It's never meant anything else (prior
to the R transvaluation, I suppose). In addition, the prophets and
sages over the millenia have guarded it and added legislative "fences"
to protect the people from transgression of Sinaitic law, as well as
made decrees, all in keeping with the power vested in them by the Torah.
(To understand how this legal system works, you really must start
learning Talmud, but a good introduction is H. Chaim Schimmel's The Oral
Law, Feldheim Publishers.)
> Wrong. For J4J, the main holy text is the NT, not the Tanach. R utterly,
> absolutely rejects the NT and its related literature.
You mentioned the practices, not the "main holy text." Anyway, I'm
arguing that once a group does away with fundamental articles of faith
of the religion (even if they retain the same central text), it ceases
to subscribe to that religion (the "boreinu" fringe among the
Lubavitchers are swiftly heading in this direction). As such, I believe
it is only fair for them to forfeit their claim to the religion as well.
> Non-obsevance would entail not doing anything at all. High holiday
> celebrations, etc. ought to count towards one's observance, shouldn't
> they?
Again, they are not observant of the major tenets of the religion.
Perhaps "observant" is the wrong term. They do not subscribe to the
traditional Jewish ideology, as historically shaped by Halakhah. (While
I'll agree that there are many sub-philosophies within Judaism, there
are certain, basic parameters we do not cross. R/C went beyond the pale.
See Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith).
> And which classical thinkers would these be? Spinoza, Freud, Kafka
> and Levi-Strauss? ;0)
By "classical thinker," I meant those of the normative rabbinic mindset.
> Nu? Paul doesn't deal with this issue at all. Children are not born
> Christian, but need to be baptised.
Nor are children born of gentile mothers Jews. Declaring bilineal
descent and liberalizing the conversion process beyond recognition is a
form of universalization that is akin to Paul's transformation of
Xianity from a Jewish sect into a universal religion. Now, virtually
anyone can become a Jew, according to their arbitrary standards.
> As for patrilineal descent, I think R should perform child conversions
> instead, in order to avoid this issue.
That's a separate issue which concerns C conversions as well. O does not
recognize either as valid. As O is the only denomination that is not
only replenishing itself, but is growing, the offspring of R and C
converts are going to have some tough choices to make (given current
trends).
Rafael
Nathanael Robinson
toward a flame war) I thought I'd ask a question about conversion that
has troubled me lately. The Talmud makes several references to converts
whom halakhah prevented from assimilating with the Isrealites (one of
these being the Canaanites). According to some recent posts, a convert
can expect nothing of the ancestral inheritance of the Holy Land. This
would seem to imply that multiple Jewish nations should exist. I'm
certain that someone has said something about this throught the years
and that I might have an exaggerated sense of what I have encountered.
Can anyone clarify?
NR
--
'"You try to be free through writing. How wrong.
Every word unveils another tie."'
--Edmond Jabes
Binyamin Dissen
[ SNIPPED ]
:>I am a former Seventh-Day Adventist, and my husband is a former secular
:>humanist. After years of thought and discussion, we made a commitment
:>to convert our family (which includes three children) to Judaism. I
:>preferred an Orthodox conversion, because (a) such a conversion *does*
:>has the greatest recognition, (b) I am very concerned about
:>assimilation, (c) it is my understanding that C and R also require a
:>thorough understanding of halacha, and this seemed to be the best way to
:>learn, and (d) a variety of personal and spiritual reasons. My husband,
:>however, preferred Reform (a choice which would also be more palatable
:>to his secular humanist parents), due in large part to his perception of
:>the way in which Orthodoxy views women. I spoke to the O rabbi about
:>this issue at the outset and was surprised when he did not treat this as
:>the major stumbling block I thought it would be.
I am surprised as well.
Perhaps he thought after a while that you would decide that this path was not
for you or your husband would see through the falseness of a reformed
conversion.
When he saw you were proceeding and intending to live with a non-Jewish man
even after your conversion, by definition you do not accept the Torah, and
thus there is no conversion.
[ snipped ]
Sheldon Glickler
Colin Rosenthal wrote in message <6om5l6$81o$1...@ncar.ucar.edu>...
>On 16 Jul 1998 19:57:08 -0400,
>Tina Anderson <tand...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>>Harvey S. Cohen (harve...@home.foo.com) wrote:
>>: >rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>>: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>: >multiply by 5/9.
>>
>>: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
>>
>>...Kelvin?...
>
>Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
>
You are right. I was thinking of it backwards (to get _to_Eliot - K - where
you would have to add rather than subtract -- to get from the formula to
him). Of course, with Eliot, it is a simple subtraction. However, I
thought it was 273.16, not 273.15. It's been almost 40 years so I might be
off by the .01 C. Sorry for the rounding <g>.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>: Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>: multiply by 5/9.
>That depends on what you're converting *from*. . .
Right, you could just subtract 273...
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
jord...@my-dejanews.com
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > For the record, I am not using a Christian yardstick, but a secular one.
> > For many Jews, the Torah IS NO LONGER TO BE SEEN AS THE DIRECT
> > WORD OF GOD. Why? We don't believe in miracles, that's all.
>
> But Judaism has been founded on the concept of miracles for thousands of
> years. Why do you now come along and tell us that one can strip away the
> religion's historic core and still be left with the same entity? This is
> what the Xians did, as well as the other defunct sects that rejected the
Not quite, as they added a layers of miracles upon the old ones, in part
to gloss over the fundamental incompatibility between their tenets and
those of Judaism. Islam co-opts the entire issue by calling the Tanach
and the NT "corrupted" long time ago, so that it doesn't deal with the
discrepancies between it and the Koran.
.
> Oral Torah. It's a time-proven recipe for assimilation and
> self-destruction.
I'd argue that the religion is following a natural evolution. Rabbinic
judaism was born when Jews could no longer worship at the Temple. R was
born when some Jews no longer were willing to accept those tenets of
their faith that went against secular knowledge As an aside. I acknowedge
that the other branches of Judaism have come to their own compromises
w.r.t. secular knowledge (Torah U'Madah comes to mind), but I am limiting
myself to discussing R.
I would like to keep two issues distinct:
- What is a rationally sound doctrine?
- What is necessary to keep a religious comminity alive?
It is essential not to confuse the two. I am merely stressing that
In my view, R's doctrines are, for the most part, a sound compromise
between faith and secular knowledge. Whether R's policies are conducive
to the permanence of the Jewish people, that is an entirely different matter.
To take an example from another tradition: the anti family-planning stance
of Catholicism has helped, rather than hurt, increase the number of
its faithful. Does that mean I think it is a sound policy (socially,
ethically, etc.)? No.
> > I never claimed otherwise. As for R, the Miami declaration agrees with
> > you.
> > http://ccarnet.org/platforms/miami.html
>
> Now they do.
That's _good_, isn't it?
>
> > > (2) as such, we are the only religion that is eternally linked to a
> > > particular national homeland; and
> >
> > Never claimed otherwise. As for R, check the same document.
>
> Now they do. (Berlin used to be the "New Jerusalem.")
And a sad irony it is.
>
> > > (3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
> > > simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
> > > people)
> >
> > ... that is if you believe the traditional text is historically accurate.
>
> No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
> the past 3,300 years.
Validation of... ?
>
> Why is it that no other religion has ever made this claim? It's a very
> strong one. The normal formula for a religion is that one or two people
Islam claims that Adam was a Muslim. i will not discuss the merits of
this doctrine.
> claim to have privately communed with a higher power or spiritual
> energy, and people believe them.
>
> Not so with us. We believe because our parents, grandparents,
> great-grandparents, etc. all relate the same miraculous event witnessed
> by our nation's ancestors at Sinai (see Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah,
> ch.8). No other religion claims national prophecy, as they would have
> never gotten away with it (which is why Xianity, Islam, and others
> "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims. Can you imagine if the
> Pope got up one day and announced to the world that, 100 years ago, all
> Italians witnessed a revelation from God. Do you think the Italians
> would believe him, without having ever heard a word about it from their
> parents and grandparents?)
For me, Torah MiSinai is a powerful founding myth, but just that, a myth.
Different groups have grappled with this doctrine. I find that R's approach
to it is intellectually sound. Again, let us not confues the two issues
of what is intellectually sound and what is urseful to keep a people
together.
>
> > Anyway, see the same document, once more. Incidentally, unless one
> > talks about gilgul and so forth, what you say does not apply to converts.
>
> Halakhically, converts become the offspring of Abraham and Sara, but
> there is a mystical opinion, among others, about their souls having been
> at Sinai.
Rceaputulating, one can be a Jew without having any ancestors at Sinai,
except for "adopted" ones.
>
> > But R doesn't reject the Oral Torah. From the Centenary Platform
> > http://ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html :
> <delete>
>
> No. The Oral Torah (Torah She'bal peh) are those lessons taught orally
> to Moses by God but not written. It's never meant anything else (prior
> to the R transvaluation, I suppose). In addition, the prophets and
Let us employ the term to describe the body of teachings that are _claimed_
to have been given to Moses by God but not written. These teachings, as
embodied in the classics of Judaism, are not being rejected by Reform. Reform
still looks to them for inspiration and guidance. As to the doctrine of the
Oral Torah, it is in a similar position as that of the Written one, i.e.
these two are to be seen as God-inspired creations.
> sages over the millenia have guarded it and added legislative "fences"
> to protect the people from transgression of Sinaitic law, as well as
> made decrees, all in keeping with the power vested in them by the Torah.
> (To understand how this legal system works, you really must start
> learning Talmud, but a good introduction is H. Chaim Schimmel's The Oral
> Law, Feldheim Publishers.)
I am familiar with the basic doctrines, but thanks a lot for the reference!
I enjoyed Max Kaddushin's _Organic Mind_. I have also read Jacob Neusner
_An invitation to the Talmud_.
>
> > Wrong. For J4J, the main holy text is the NT, not the Tanach. R utterly,
> > absolutely rejects the NT and its related literature.
>
> You mentioned the practices, not the "main holy text." Anyway, I'm
> arguing that once a group does away with fundamental articles of faith
> of the religion (even if they retain the same central text), it ceases
> to subscribe to that religion (the "boreinu" fringe among the
> Lubavitchers are swiftly heading in this direction). As such, I believe
> it is only fair for them to forfeit their claim to the religion as well.
I would disagree, inasmuch as Maimonides Articles of Faith reflect his
personal opinion, and are subject to questioning. R's position is that
revelation is a continual process. We now know more (God has told us more)
about the world that we can no longer accept the Torah miSinai doctrine
at face value. People's ideas on the divinity change with time. I
believe that R's views are consistent with the our knowledge of the
world... and that's the paramount thing for me. Torah miSinai
has oultived its intellectual usefulness. If those who still believe in
it refuse to grant a "Jewish" status to those who no longer believe in it,
then so be it. The Jewish people may need to divide between those
who accept Torah miSinai, and those who don't. I believe this has already
happened to a great extent. As to who remains "Jewish" in his beliefs
and who doesn't, neither side is going to budge, and that's too bad.
God will decide in the end. As for me, who finds Torah miSinai
untenable, I consider both equally Jewish. Both represent strands of
the Jewish loom.
>
> > Non-obsevance would entail not doing anything at all. High holiday
> > celebrations, etc. ought to count towards one's observance, shouldn't
> > they?
>
> Again, they are not observant of the major tenets of the religion.
> Perhaps "observant" is the wrong term. They do not subscribe to the
> traditional Jewish ideology, as historically shaped by Halakhah. (While
> I'll agree that there are many sub-philosophies within Judaism, there
> are certain, basic parameters we do not cross. R/C went beyond the pale.
> See Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith).
But where did God say that the 13 Principles of Faith were the last word?
Maimonides was wrong about many things, such as astronomy. Why should
his chosen set of dogmas be seen as unquestionable?
>
> > And which classical thinkers would these be? Spinoza, Freud, Kafka
> > and Levi-Strauss? ;0)
>
> By "classical thinker," I meant those of the normative rabbinic mindset.
And to claim that these would consider that the only worth of R is
that it keeps intrmarriage somewhat down is a futile exercise, IMO.
>
> > Nu? Paul doesn't deal with this issue at all. Children are not born
> > Christian, but need to be baptised.
>
> Nor are children born of gentile mothers Jews. Declaring bilineal
> descent and liberalizing the conversion process beyond recognition is a
> form of universalization that is akin to Paul's transformation of
> Xianity from a Jewish sect into a universal religion. Now, virtually
> anyone can become a Jew, according to their arbitrary standards.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim that R is becoming "universalistic". If
such, it would become a proselytizing sect, instead of claiming
that Jews are a people (see, once more, the Miami platform).
>
> > As for patrilineal descent, I think R should perform child conversions
> > instead, in order to avoid this issue.
>
> That's a separate issue which concerns C conversions as well. O does not
> recognize either as valid. As O is the only denomination that is not
> only replenishing itself, but is growing, the offspring of R and C
> converts are going to have some tough choices to make (given current
> trends).
Indeed it's a worrisome trend, and I hope R, C, and O can work towards a
compromise that will help stem this trend (and which brings us
closer to the thread topic! :). Otherwise, it will become
harder and harder for O to marry non-O.
>
> Rafael
>
Shabbat shalom,
Harvey S. Cohen
>But Judaism has been founded on the concept of miracles for thousands of
>years.
>[sd]
Didn't RAMBAM state as a fundamental precept that miracles are *not* necessary
to Judaism? Sorry my memory is so vague. I will ask my teacher about this [B"N]
next week.
Harvey S. Cohen
>>: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>: >multiply by 5/9.
Harvey S. Cohen (harve...@home.foo.com) wrote:
>>: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
Tina Anderson <tand...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>>...Kelvin?...
rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
I suspect Eliot would be the first to point out that converting him to C would
be a subtraction. :-)
rafael
> Not quite, as they added a layers of miracles upon the old ones, in part
> to gloss over the fundamental incompatibility between their tenets and
> those of Judaism. Islam co-opts the entire issue by calling the Tanach
> and the NT "corrupted" long time ago, so that it doesn't deal with the
> discrepancies between it and the Koran.
Yes, but the early Xians,Sadducees, Baithusians, Karaites rejected the
Oral Law, but maintained belief in Torah MiSinai. This in itself was
untenable for the three groups that remained Jewish. The Xians, who went
universal, supplanted even the Written Law with a "new covenant."
Fundamental changes.
> I'd argue that the religion is following a natural evolution. Rabbinic
> judaism was born when Jews could no longer worship at the Temple.
The Pharasees (whose teachings are brought down in the Talmud, along
with the Zugot and Anshei Kenesset Hagadolah) were all pre-destruction.
> R was
> born when some Jews no longer were willing to accept those tenets of
> their faith that went against secular knowledge
Speculation.
> As an aside. I acknowedge
> that the other branches of Judaism have come to their own compromises
> w.r.t. secular knowledge (Torah U'Madah comes to mind), but I am limiting
> myself to discussing R.
>
> I would like to keep two issues distinct:
> - What is a rationally sound doctrine?
> - What is necessary to keep a religious comminity alive?
>
> It is essential not to confuse the two. I am merely stressing that
> In my view, R's doctrines are, for the most part, a sound compromise
> between faith and secular knowledge. Whether R's policies are conducive
> to the permanence of the Jewish people, that is an entirely different matter.
The permanence of the Jewish people (at least until the coming of the
Messiah) is part of our religion. That we've seen so many mighty
civilizations come and go is support for our claim. That we've been
guided by what is today called "Orthodoxy" all this time (and you have
yet to show evidence against this) is also a support for the traditional
interpretations. Those movements that have veered from these teachings
have historically perished. That R/C appears to be doing the same is
relgiously significant.
> To take an example from another tradition: the anti family-planning stance
> of Catholicism has helped, rather than hurt, increase the number of
> its faithful. Does that mean I think it is a sound policy (socially,
> ethically, etc.)? No.
>
> > > I never claimed otherwise. As for R, the Miami declaration agrees with
> > > you.
> > > http://ccarnet.org/platforms/miami.html
> >
> > Now they do.
>
> That's _good_, isn't it?
It shows a fickle attitude towards truth.
> > No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
> > the past 3,300 years.
>
> Validation of... ?
Of Judaism (today known as "Orthodoxy").
> For me, Torah MiSinai is a powerful founding myth, but just that, a myth.
> Different groups have grappled with this doctrine. I find that R's approach
> to it is intellectually sound. Again, let us not confues the two issues
> of what is intellectually sound and what is urseful to keep a people
> together.
It is only "intellectually sound" in that, in the short-run, it keeps
Jews from baptism. Beyond that, it flies in the face of the wisdom of
ages. The early R sounded Judaism's death nell. With that message, they
founded their assimilationist movement. Today, we see that if R is in
fact "intellectually sound," it is only as a non-Jewish religion (which
is, no doubt, why they originally pronounced Jews no longer a nation).
That's not to say that I see R as "intellectually sound," as simply
doesn't work as Judaism.
> Rceaputulating, one can be a Jew without having any ancestors at Sinai,
> except for "adopted" ones.
If you are talking about converts, yes. And a Jew needn't be taught
Torah by his parents to become halakhically observant. Both must to
learn to be halakhically observant (through hard personal study and
lessons with rabbis & "FFB's") in order to better ensure their
contribution to the Jewish nation's continuity. This is part of the
message of the verses I cited.
> Let us employ the term to describe the body of teachings that are _claimed_
> to have been given to Moses by God but not written. These teachings, as
> embodied in the classics of Judaism, are not being rejected by Reform. Reform
> still looks to them for inspiration and guidance. As to the doctrine of the
> Oral Torah, it is in a similar position as that of the Written one, i.e.
> these two are to be seen as God-inspired creations.
The Talmud does not permit a "God-inspired" interpretation. It teaches
explicitly that every word of the Torah was dictated to Moses and he
recorded it as he was told, while receiving verbal more detailed
explanations along with it. This is a fundamental article of faith that
R/C reject, placing themselves outside the pale of Judaism. The halakhic
ramifications of espousing such a belief is found elsewhere in the
Talmud as well as in the writings of the Rishonim and Acharonim up to
the present day.
> I am familiar with the basic doctrines, but thanks a lot for the reference!
> I enjoyed Max Kaddushin's _Organic Mind_. I have also read Jacob Neusner
> _An invitation to the Talmud_.
So your knowledge is compete? If you think so, trust me, you haven't
learned that much about Talmud. Check out this book.
> I would disagree, inasmuch as Maimonides Articles of Faith reflect his
> personal opinion, and are subject to questioning.
Seeing as how they plainly rooted in the Talmud & Tanakh and are found
in our daily siddurim, they are a little more than just "his" opinion.
In fact, those Rishonim who argued with Rambam over these argued little
details, like: should there be more? or if he wants to limit himself to
only 13, should resurection of the dead belong in the top 13? But no
authorities argued that they are fundamental articles of Jewish faith.
R's position is that
> revelation is a continual process. We now know more (God has told us more)
> about the world that we can no longer accept the Torah miSinai doctrine
> at face value. People's ideas on the divinity change with time. I
> believe that R's views are consistent with the our knowledge of the
> world... and that's the paramount thing for me. Torah miSinai
> has oultived its intellectual usefulness. If those who still believe in
> it refuse to grant a "Jewish" status to those who no longer believe in it,
> then so be it. The Jewish people may need to divide between those
> who accept Torah miSinai, and those who don't. I believe this has already
> happened to a great extent. As to who remains "Jewish" in his beliefs
> and who doesn't, neither side is going to budge, and that's too bad.
> God will decide in the end. As for me, who finds Torah miSinai
> untenable, I consider both equally Jewish. Both represent strands of
> the Jewish loom.
I don't believe, from what you've shown me, that you have seriously
engaged yourself in the study of classical Judaism, so I think it is
very easy for you to dismiss it. Nothing I can say here on the Internet
can pull you out of your comfortable non-observant life and make you
understand this. All I can say, with great pain, is that you are sadly
mistaken (this coming from a born & raised agnostic).
But I will agree that Jewish people has indeed split, and it is by no
means the first time in history. Only "Orthodoxy" is alive to tell about
it.
> But where did God say that the 13 Principles of Faith were the last word?
> Maimonides was wrong about many things, such as astronomy. Why should
> his chosen set of dogmas be seen as unquestionable?
His astronomy came from Aristotle. His 13 Principles came from Jewish
tradition, which has its origin at Sinai. It is a very important
distinction.
> And to claim that these would consider that the only worth of R is
> that it keeps intrmarriage somewhat down is a futile exercise, IMO.
Not in the opinion of those O who feel they have a better chance of
reaching out to R than to unaffiliated or Xian, Buddhist, etc. Jews.
> I wouldn't go so far as to claim that R is becoming "universalistic". If
> such, it would become a proselytizing sect, instead of claiming
> that Jews are a people (see, once more, the Miami platform).
Actually, about 2 or 3 years ago, I recall an article in the local
Jewish Sentinel about R's idea to start a new campaign to proselytize to
gentiles. I don't know if they ever got started (they probably got
side-tracked by their venture into Israel--which I see as abandoning a
sinking ship).
> Indeed it's a worrisome trend, and I hope R, C, and O can work towards a
> compromise that will help stem this trend (and which brings us
> closer to the thread topic! :). Otherwise, it will become
> harder and harder for O to marry non-O.
Such compromise is halakhically and historically untenable. Also, I
recall some R leader saying in a New York magazine article about the
disappearance of American Jewry something to the effect that "if it
comes between Orthodoxy or assimilation, we're choosing assimilation."
With such a low regard for classical Judaism, I can't foresee
reconciliation on the official level.
Shavua Tov,
Rafael
PS: I hope we move on to more positive subjects one day. You sound like
a really nice guy.
Richard Schultz
: Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
Actually, I thought to convert to C you had to multiply by the speed
of light. (Extra bonus points -- or perhaps extra points deducted --
for any physics nerds who know which units I'm talking about.)
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --
jord...@my-dejanews.com
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Not quite, as they added a layers of miracles upon the old ones, in part
> > to gloss over the fundamental incompatibility between their tenets and
> > those of Judaism. Islam co-opts the entire issue by calling the Tanach
> > and the NT "corrupted" long time ago, so that it doesn't deal with the
> > discrepancies between it and the Koran.
>
> Yes, but the early Xians,Sadducees, Baithusians, Karaites rejected the
> Oral Law, but maintained belief in Torah MiSinai. This in itself was
> untenable for the three groups that remained Jewish. The Xians, who went
> universal, supplanted even the Written Law with a "new covenant."
> Fundamental changes.
My point exactly. Reform has not instituted any new covenant,
nor any new holy text. This is a fundamental difference w.r.t. Xianity,
and a main reason I consider comparisons between the two to be unfair.
As for ccmparisons between R and Sadducees, etc., again you have stated the
main difference. R does not reject (or claims not to reject, if you will)
the Oral Law. It DOES reject Torah miSinai. This makes comparisons
with these other movemnts only of limited value.
I am not discussing the viability or unviability of Reform as a Jewish
movement; rather, I am arguing that it is a bona fide movement, regardless
of its future.
>
> > I'd argue that the religion is following a natural evolution. Rabbinic
> > judaism was born when Jews could no longer worship at the Temple.
>
> The Pharasees (whose teachings are brought down in the Talmud, along
> with the Zugot and Anshei Kenesset Hagadolah) were all pre-destruction.
An oversimplification on my part. The Gemara, crowning achievement of
Rabbinic Judaism, was written after the destruction of the Temple.
>
> > R was
> > born when some Jews no longer were willing to accept those tenets of
> > their faith that went against secular knowledge
>
> Speculation.
And valid speculation, I think. REgardless, this is one of the ways
Reform has explained its rejection of the Torah miSinai doctrine. I
quote from the 1885 platform, http://ccarnet.org/platforms/pittsburgh.html :
2. We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of
the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God,
and value it as the most potent instrument of religious and
moral instruction. We hold that the modern discoveries of
scientific researches in the domain of nature and history are not
antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism, the Bible reflecting
the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its
conception of divine Providence and Justice dealing with men
in miraculous narratives.
> > I would like to keep two issues distinct:
> > - What is a rationally sound doctrine?
> > - What is necessary to keep a religious comminity alive?
> >
> > It is essential not to confuse the two. I am merely stressing that
> > In my view, R's doctrines are, for the most part, a sound compromise
> > between faith and secular knowledge. Whether R's policies are conducive
> > to the permanence of the Jewish people, that is an entirely different
matter.
>
> The permanence of the Jewish people (at least until the coming of the
> Messiah) is part of our religion. That we've seen so many mighty
> civilizations come and go is support for our claim. That we've been
> guided by what is today called "Orthodoxy" all this time (and you have
> yet to show evidence against this) is also a support for the traditional
> interpretations. Those movements that have veered from these teachings
> have historically perished. That R/C appears to be doing the same is
> relgiously significant.
You are continuing to the two issues. Whether the policies of R or C
--or rather, the individual decisions of those millions of Jews unaffiliated
to O-- doom non-O Judaism to extinction (though I still see plenty of
hope for them) is IRRELEVANT as far as the intellectual soundness of
a theological position is concerned.
To take a rather extreme example, for all we know, the Egyptians were right,
and our souls are getting destroyed because we don't mummify our bodies
when we die. THe fact that nobody follows the ancient Egyptian religion
anymore doesn't mean that it is wrong. Sure, I definitely bet it is wrong,
but that is another story.
[...]
> > > No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
> > > the past 3,300 years.
> >
> > Validation of... ?
>
> Of Judaism (today known as "Orthodoxy").
I believe that the continuing existence of Jews attests to its persuasive
power, the cohesion of its people, and sheer luck. For me, it has nothing
to do with the truth of Judaism or lack thereof. I stay within my
secular bounds when explaining its continuing existence.
> > For me, Torah MiSinai is a powerful founding myth, but just that, a myth.
> > Different groups have grappled with this doctrine. I find that R's approach
> > to it is intellectually sound. Again, let us not confues the two issues
> > of what is intellectually sound and what is urseful to keep a people
> > together.
>
> It is only "intellectually sound" in that, in the short-run, it keeps
> Jews from baptism. Beyond that, it flies in the face of the wisdom of
No; that is not intellectually sound but socially sound. Entirely different
things.
> ages. The early R sounded Judaism's death nell. With that message, they
> founded their assimilationist movement. Today, we see that if R is in
Since then, R has rejected its earlier assimilatiionist ideology, and
instead bases its relaxation of halacha on theological and philosophical
grounds. R today is not committed to the assimilation of Jews, but to the
perpetuation of its doctrines. Whether it is doing enough to perpetuate
the Jewish people is a different matter.
> fact "intellectually sound," it is only as a non-Jewish religion (which
> is, no doubt, why they originally pronounced Jews no longer a nation).
> That's not to say that I see R as "intellectually sound," as simply
> doesn't work as Judaism.
I think it does, and believe that the only thing to do is agree to disagree.
[...]
> > Let us employ the term to describe the body of teachings that are _claimed_
> > to have been given to Moses by God but not written. These teachings, as
> > embodied in the classics of Judaism, are not being rejected by Reform.
Reform
> > still looks to them for inspiration and guidance. As to the doctrine of the
> > Oral Torah, it is in a similar position as that of the Written one, i.e.
> > these two are to be seen as God-inspired creations.
>
> The Talmud does not permit a "God-inspired" interpretation. It teaches
> explicitly that every word of the Torah was dictated to Moses and he
> recorded it as he was told, while receiving verbal more detailed
> explanations along with it. This is a fundamental article of faith that
Then perhaps the Talmud is wrong. R/C are attempts to correct the
errors of our ancient sages.
> R/C reject, placing themselves outside the pale of Judaism. The halakhic
> ramifications of espousing such a belief is found elsewhere in the
> Talmud as well as in the writings of the Rishonim and Acharonim up to
> the present day.
So R goes against a number of Talmudic and post-Talmudic doctrines. I
never claimed otherwise. Whether that puts it beyond the pale
of Judaism depends on your set of axioms of what Judaism is.
>
> > I am familiar with the basic doctrines, but thanks a lot for the reference!
> > I enjoyed Max Kaddushin's _Organic Mind_. I have also read Jacob Neusner
> > _An invitation to the Talmud_.
>
> So your knowledge is compete? If you think so, trust me, you haven't
> learned that much about Talmud. Check out this book.
Correction: it's "Organic Thinking". Mister Kaddushin also wrote "The
Rabbinical Mind"
Of course my knowledge is far from complete. IT will NEVER be complete.
However, my current knowledge is sufficient for me to claim that I know the
basic doctrines of classical Judaism. I also know I reject them.
>
> > I would disagree, inasmuch as Maimonides Articles of Faith reflect his
> > personal opinion, and are subject to questioning.
>
> Seeing as how they plainly rooted in the Talmud & Tanakh and are found
> in our daily siddurim, they are a little more than just "his" opinion.
> In fact, those Rishonim who argued with Rambam over these argued little
> details, like: should there be more? or if he wants to limit himself to
> only 13, should resurection of the dead belong in the top 13? But no
> authorities argued that they are fundamental articles of Jewish faith.
I direct you to the "More fundamentals" thread; I would like to see you
answer Jay and Robert's objections.
[...]
> I don't believe, from what you've shown me, that you have seriously
> engaged yourself in the study of classical Judaism, so I think it is
> very easy for you to dismiss it. Nothing I can say here on the Internet
> can pull you out of your comfortable non-observant life and make you
> understand this. All I can say, with great pain, is that you are sadly
> mistaken (this coming from a born & raised agnostic).
Although I definitely look forward to knowing more about classical Judaism
(I am currently reading Levinas' _Talmudic Readings_), I feel I must dismiss
it. I CANNOT BELIEVE IN TORAH MISINAI. I CANNOT ACCEPT REVELATION, PERIOD.
No matter how much I study, no matter if I devoted my entire life to the
study of Jewish sources, I probably could not reconcile myself to these
doctrines, end of story.
I am glad that you have found in O the answers you have been searching for.
Still, I must ask you to remember that it is an intellectually and morally
valid stance to remain an agnostic, even if one is open to other opinions.
>
> But I will agree that Jewish people has indeed split, and it is by no
> means the first time in history. Only "Orthodoxy" is alive to tell about
> it.
It needn't be the same way this time.
>
> > But where did God say that the 13 Principles of Faith were the last word?
> > Maimonides was wrong about many things, such as astronomy. Why should
> > his chosen set of dogmas be seen as unquestionable?
>
> His astronomy came from Aristotle. His 13 Principles came from Jewish
> tradition, which has its origin at Sinai. It is a very important
> distinction.
Tradition does not make truth. Again, please refer to the thread I mention.
[...]
>
> > I wouldn't go so far as to claim that R is becoming "universalistic". If
> > such, it would become a proselytizing sect, instead of claiming
> > that Jews are a people (see, once more, the Miami platform).
>
> Actually, about 2 or 3 years ago, I recall an article in the local
> Jewish Sentinel about R's idea to start a new campaign to proselytize to
> gentiles. I don't know if they ever got started (they probably got
> side-tracked by their venture into Israel--which I see as abandoning a
> sinking ship).
nteresting, and it shows the ambivalent position R still has.
>
> > Indeed it's a worrisome trend, and I hope R, C, and O can work towards a
> > compromise that will help stem this trend (and which brings us
> > closer to the thread topic! :). Otherwise, it will become
> > harder and harder for O to marry non-O.
>
> Such compromise is halakhically and historically untenable. Also, I
It doesn't need to be. As long as the child conversion is not as
harsh in its terms as the adult O one, I don't see why it must be
untenable.
> recall some R leader saying in a New York magazine article about the
> disappearance of American Jewry something to the effect that "if it
> comes between Orthodoxy or assimilation, we're choosing assimilation."
An unfortunate remark, but not one that reflects upon the entire R
movement. Still with a certain sadness, I must say that if I had to
choose between complete assimilation and certain kinds of Orthodoxy,
I would not hesitate to choose the former. Many non-O Jews are
angry at the attitudes of certain O towards us. This rabbi's
remark may reflect some of this anger, rather than a dismissal
of the entire O community.
> With such a low regard for classical Judaism, I can't foresee
> reconciliation on the official level.
I still have hope, nonetheless.
Best regards,
Jordi
P.D. RAfael, I am afraid I must bow out of this thread; the next couple
of weeks are going to be really busy. I've enjoyed our conversation
very much, though.
rafael
> My point exactly. Reform has not instituted any new covenant,
> nor any new holy text. This is a fundamental difference w.r.t. Xianity,
> and a main reason I consider comparisons between the two to be unfair.
> As for ccmparisons between R and Sadducees, etc., again you have stated the
> main difference. R does not reject (or claims not to reject, if you will)
> the Oral Law. It DOES reject Torah miSinai. This makes comparisons
> with these other movemnts only of limited value.
<sigh> They do reject the Oral Law as it's been understood for millenia.
Furthermore, the belief in Torah MiSinai is mandated by Oral Law (see
the Mishna in Sanhedrin 10:1). They are similar to Xianity in their
rejection of halakhah. Both movements maintain that God's covenant with
the Jews is an impossible one to follow.
> And valid speculation, I think. REgardless, this is one of the ways
> Reform has explained its rejection of the Torah miSinai doctrine. I
> quote from the 1885 platform, http://ccarnet.org/platforms/pittsburgh.html :
>
> 2. We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of
> the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God,
> and value it as the most potent instrument of religious and
> moral instruction. We hold that the modern discoveries of
> scientific researches in the domain of nature and history are not
> antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism, the Bible reflecting
> the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its
> conception of divine Providence and Justice dealing with men
> in miraculous narratives.
I'm not sure how this relates, but "primitive ideas" sounds like an
annulment of the religion to me.
> You are continuing to the two issues. Whether the policies of R or C
> --or rather, the individual decisions of those millions of Jews unaffiliated
> to O-- doom non-O Judaism to extinction (though I still see plenty of
> hope for them) is IRRELEVANT as far as the intellectual soundness of
> a theological position is concerned.
I continue to disagree. I see a link between "intellectual soundness"
(your subjective term) and success in maintaining a continuous
community. Orthodoxy is vibrant and growing. These "intellectually
sound" movements have shown themselves unworthy of maintaining Jewry, as
O has done for the past 3,300 years.
> To take a rather extreme example, for all we know, the Egyptians were right,
> and our souls are getting destroyed because we don't mummify our bodies
> when we die. THe fact that nobody follows the ancient Egyptian religion
> anymore doesn't mean that it is wrong. Sure, I definitely bet it is wrong,
> but that is another story.
No, they were wrong and that's why their civilization perished. A better
example would be Xianity, which is approaching its 2,000th birthday, but
its universality puts it into a different category than Judaism, which
is a national religion (unless you include Noachidism).
> I believe that the continuing existence of Jews attests to its persuasive
> power, the cohesion of its people, and sheer luck. For me, it has nothing
> to do with the truth of Judaism or lack thereof. I stay within my
> secular bounds when explaining its continuing existence.
I'm not challenging your skepticism so much as your understanding of the
possibility for pluralism in Judaism. (An argument over personal beliefs
might be even more futile than this thread.:-))
> No; that is not intellectually sound but socially sound. Entirely different
> things.
See above. I should mention that I'm not arguing a rationalistic "social
soundness" on the part of O. My theory on Judaism's longevity emanates
more from religious conviction.
> Since then, R has rejected its earlier assimilatiionist ideology, and
> instead bases its relaxation of halacha on theological and philosophical
> grounds. R today is not committed to the assimilation of Jews, but to the
> perpetuation of its doctrines. Whether it is doing enough to perpetuate
> the Jewish people is a different matter.
You raise a good point here. I interpret this as "relaxation of halacha
on whatever grounds we can find without destroying ourselves." Their
intentions today may be good, but their raison d'etre is inherently
mistaken. The answer is no "relaxation of halacha" but "strengthening of
halacha." That's the traditional Jewish way.
> Then perhaps the Talmud is wrong. R/C are attempts to correct the
> errors of our ancient sages.
Wrong on what basis? It's a metaphysical truth. (Has a "bat kol"
declared this to R/C and not O?)
> So R goes against a number of Talmudic and post-Talmudic doctrines. I
> never claimed otherwise. Whether that puts it beyond the pale
> of Judaism depends on your set of axioms of what Judaism is.
Correct. It is intellectual theft, however, to change the axioms and
call it the same thing.
> Of course my knowledge is far from complete. IT will NEVER be complete.
> However, my current knowledge is sufficient for me to claim that I know the
> basic doctrines of classical Judaism. I also know I reject them.
Again, this is another issue. (I still maintain that you have not
wrestled with Judaism enough to make an informed decision.)
> I direct you to the "More fundamentals" thread; I would like to see you
> answer Jay and Robert's objections.
Answered Jay already. I don't want to get into an exchange with Robert
("liar," "get help" and all that mishugas). I'll just add here that
there are are 3 schools of thought amgonst the Rishonim about Rambam's
13 Principles of Faith: (1) he didn't go far enough; (2) he went to far
(in condemning erroneous conclusions in addition to wilfull rebellion);
and (3) agree that there are principles, but argue about the specific
list. Rambam's code, however, has received the widest acceptance and is
recited every morning (in poetic form).
> Although I definitely look forward to knowing more about classical Judaism
> (I am currently reading Levinas' _Talmudic Readings_), I feel I must dismiss
> it. I CANNOT BELIEVE IN TORAH MISINAI. I CANNOT ACCEPT REVELATION, PERIOD.
> No matter how much I study, no matter if I devoted my entire life to the
> study of Jewish sources, I probably could not reconcile myself to these
> doctrines, end of story.
That's what I used to think :-)
> I am glad that you have found in O the answers you have been searching for.
> Still, I must ask you to remember that it is an intellectually and morally
> valid stance to remain an agnostic, even if one is open to other opinions.
I agree, but I would add (from experience) that your reasons are more
emotional than you may be allowing yourself to believe. (But again, this
is only tangential to our discussion).
> It needn't be the same way this time.
I'm afraid it does (but I'm no prophet).
> Tradition does not make truth. Again, please refer to the thread I mention.
In Judaism, it usually does. You don't like Judaism, fine. Just please
don't tell me what it is.
> It doesn't need to be. As long as the child conversion is not as
> harsh in its terms as the adult O one, I don't see why it must be
> untenable.
If you are suggesting converting children who will be raised
non-observant Jews, then no compassionate, God-fearing O rabbi would
convert such children.
> An unfortunate remark, but not one that reflects upon the entire R
> movement. Still with a certain sadness, I must say that if I had to
> choose between complete assimilation and certain kinds of Orthodoxy,
> I would not hesitate to choose the former. Many non-O Jews are
> angry at the attitudes of certain O towards us. This rabbi's
> remark may reflect some of this anger, rather than a dismissal
> of the entire O community.
The traditional belief that the Jewish nation is judged collectively
accounts for some of the O resentment towards non-O. Many, however,
don't give them much thought. I think there is generally more pity for
unaffilliated Jews than resentment. The feelings towards the movements
(at least the O-bashing leaders), however, stem (as I said) more from
the copyright issue.
All the best,
Rafael
Eliot Shimoff
Harvey S. Cohen <harve...@home.foo.com> wrote:
>Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
>
>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
>
>Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>>>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>>>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>>>converted to C?".
>
>>Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>multiply by 5/9.
Harvey:
>This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
Eliot assures all that he has no intention of converting. If nothing
else, Eliot worries about the consequences of subtracting 32 (or 273).
I _know_ we're not talking about 32 pounds (which could be subtracted
for good cause, although 273 would be a bit much). And I don't have
32 (kal v'homer 273) _degrees_ to lose. And I don't mess around
with dimensionless numbers (at least since I started programming in
Visual Basic, and learned about Option Explicit, which requires that one
dim _everything_.)
--
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) | Interested in Talmud study
Proud saba of Tani, T'mima, | by email?
Moshe, Hillel,Tsivia & Chani | Visit my website ...
(Space reserved for new entries) | http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff
Sheldon Glickler
>In article <35b967fc.156157731@news>,
>Harvey S. Cohen <harve...@home.foo.com> wrote:
>>Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
>>
>>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>>>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
>>
>>Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>>>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>>>>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>>>>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>>>>converted to C?".
>>
>>>rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>>>Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>>multiply by 5/9.
>
>Harvey:
>>This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
>
>Eliot assures all that he has no intention of converting. If nothing
>else, Eliot worries about the consequences of subtracting 32 (or 273).
>I _know_ we're not talking about 32 pounds (which could be subtracted
>for good cause, although 273 would be a bit much). And I don't have
>32 (kal v'homer 273) _degrees_ to lose. And I don't mess around
>with dimensionless numbers (at least since I started programming in
>Visual Basic, and learned about Option Explicit, which requires that one
>dim _everything_.)
It is always a good practice to require the definition of the fundamentals.
Eliot, in C it is required that everything be declared and defined C also
has a lot more flexibility, applicability and universality.
Shelly
Eliot Shimoff
Harvey S. Cohen <harve...@home.foo.com> wrote:
>rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>>>: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>>: >multiply by 5/9.
>
>>>: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
>
>Tina Anderson <tand...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>>>...Kelvin?...
>
>>Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
Harvey:
>I suspect Eliot would be the first to point out that converting him to C would
>be a subtraction. :-)
I will not, cannot, switch to K
Not tomorrow, and not today
Would I, could I, become C?
No, that's something I'd never be.
Would I, could I, to be egal?
I would not, could not, Harvey, pal!
Would I, could I, reject G'dolim?
I would not, could not, my friend Colin!
Would I, could I, just for play?
Not even for you, Tina A.
But what a great change for scj
Replacing OCR flames with C/F/K !
Eliot Shimoff
In article <6ovg9a$5...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eliot (writing in the third person, while the other two were busy):
>>Eliot assures all that he has no intention of converting. If nothing
>>else, Eliot worries about the consequences of subtracting 32 (or 273).
>>I _know_ we're not talking about 32 pounds (which could be subtracted
>>for good cause, although 273 would be a bit much). And I don't have
>>32 (kal v'homer 273) _degrees_ to lose. And I don't mess around
>>with dimensionless numbers (at least since I started programming in
>>Visual Basic, and learned about Option Explicit, which requires that one
>>dim _everything_.)
>It is always a good practice to require the definition of the fundamentals.
>Eliot, in C it is required that everything be declared and defined C also
>has a lot more flexibility, applicability and universality.
The problem with C is that it's base of operations is rather arbitrary.
K, on the other hand, has a real and permanent beginning point that is
immutable, and really cooool! Naturally, as an O, I have a preference
for K.
Unless, of course, you mean _that_ C. But why would anyone want to
convert to _that_ C. We all agree that the Blue Book was written
by men (and men who never even _claimed_ Divine inspiration). The
fundamentals of _that_ C are far too flexible; they have already been
superseded by C++ (which, as we all know, is really D)!
Unless, of course, you mean _that_ C. In which case, you are a liar.
And what you write is really bizarre. And that's exactly what I've been saying
all along; why are you lying about me? You really need help.
(So she went into the bar and asked for a Double Entendre. And the
barkeep gave her one. [Lifted shamelessly from a recent rec.humor.funny
list of one-liners.])
Sheldon Glickler
Eliot Shimoff wrote in message <6ovksl$e...@umbc7.umbc.edu>...
Personally, while I like metric for most things, in this case I find F far
more human oriented and understandable (0 is cooold, and 100 is hoooot).
However, since I go back to basics (the beginning) it is understandable why
I added 460 and became R.
Shelly
D S Levene
: jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > > (3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
: > > simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
: > > people)
>
: > ... that is if you believe the traditional text is historically accurate.
: No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
: the past 3,300 years.
: Why is it that no other religion has ever made this claim? It's a very
: strong one. The normal formula for a religion is that one or two people
: claim to have privately communed with a higher power or spiritual
: energy, and people believe them.
: Not so with us. We believe because our parents, grandparents,
: great-grandparents, etc. all relate the same miraculous event witnessed
: by our nation's ancestors at Sinai (see Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah,
: ch.8). No other religion claims national prophecy, as they would have
: never gotten away with it (which is why Xianity, Islam, and others
: "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims. Can you imagine if the
: Pope got up one day and announced to the world that, 100 years ago, all
: Italians witnessed a revelation from God. Do you think the Italians
: would believe him, without having ever heard a word about it from their
: parents and grandparents?)
I can see no difficulty in the Italians believing such a thing - PROVIDED
we increase the length of time slightly, AND adjust the story to make it
more closely parallel to the Torah - you'll see what I mean below.
The argument you are putting forward here is of course a very famous
one, derived originally (I believe) from the Kuzari by R' Yehuda HaLevi.
However, there are plenty of counterexamples, and, more importantly, the
argument depends on at least four false premises. For a random
counterexample, consider, for example, the Theban foundation legend,
according to which the original Thebans sprung fully-formed from the earth
after their lawgiver, Cadmus, had sowed dragons' teeth into it. If (as
I presume) you don't believe this legend to be true, then on your account
you should have difficulty explaining how the Thebans, supposedly
descended from these people, believed it when it was introduced. Indeed,
may I suggest that you spend a little time investigating ancient
foundation-myths more generally?
But even if there *were* no counterexamples, the Kuzari's argument
would still be fatally flawed, because, as I said, it depends on a set of
erroneous underlying assumptions:
(1) It assumes that the factual status of texts remains constant across
time. But in fact a text that was written and originally regarded as a
total or partial fiction may gradually be regarded with greater reverence
and status across the generations, until it is seen as fully factual. In
which case people *would* have heard about the story from their parents,
but would not know of its imperceptible drift from the way in which it
had been regarded by their ancestors. There are many examples both
ancient and modern, from Homer to the so-called "Angel of Mons".
(2) It assumes a society in which texts and information are widely
distributed, such that people, when receiving a new text or story, will
*know* that it is new. In fact, however, this was often not the case in
ancient societies: people often would have only the vaguest knowledge of
their own family or national pasts, and they were aware that information
might well be in slow circulation about which they knew nothing. If
an individual learned of what appeared to be such information, it would
be welcomed, not questioned.
(3) It assumes that texts predate practices; in fact religious practices
often predate texts. If a text then emerges that in part provides
apparent aetiologies for pre-existing practices, that very fact is a major
factor in validating the text for its readers. The history of the
"Sibylline Books" at Rome is an instructive example.
(4) It assumes a simple introduction of a unitary text in a set form. But
in fact texts can circulate in multiple formats for generations, and even
more if they are supplemented by shifting oral traditions. When a final
format emerges, it will be validated by its similarity to things that have
been around for a long time; and the very fact of the tradition's prior
polyvalency means that no one can have a firm basis for questioning
particular details within it.
That the argument depends on assumptions like these can be seen,
apart from anything else, by the way in which you set up your "Pope"
parallel. Note your own words:
: "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims. Can you imagine if the
: Pope got up one day and announced to the world that, 100 years ago, all
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Italians witnessed a revelation from God. Do you think the Italians
: would believe him, without having ever heard a word about it from their
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: parents and grandparents?)
All of the underlined passages depend on the false assumptions I have
outlined.
As I said, I have no difficulty in thinking that the Italians could
be led to accept such a revelation as historical, *providing* we change
the example to make it more realistic. If we accept that these Italians
knew little about their own history; that Italy was a society where there
was no firm historical knowledge to be had of the period, and where few
texts existed and few had access to them; where the Italians were
practising a religion with a complex set of taboos of whose origins
they were unaware, and for which the story provided an aetiology; where
there were a multiple and shifting set of versions of a similar story
(though without the crucial details) already in circulation; where the
Pope didn't "announce it to the world" (having no facility for doing so),
but to a smaller group, and it then circulated gradually; and where he
did not intend his version as fully historically true, but where it
gradually took on factual status through the years as it circulated -
under *these* circumstances, yes indeed, I can easily imagine it
happening. 100 years is a little short for the sort of processes I
have in mind, but increase it to (say) 300, and there is no problem.
All of these factors can easily be paralleled from other ancient
societies, and out of them one can construct many possible pictures of how
the idea of Torah being revealed to the nation could have achieved
currency. As to which (if any) of them is correct, I don't need to
decide. The Kuzari's argument is an a priori argument: stripped to its
bare bones, it is claiming that there is *no* plausible way in which such
a story could come to be believed unless it were true. The instant that
one can provide *any* plausible alternative, as I have done here, the
Kuzari's case collapses.
For the same reason, however, I should make it clear that I do not
regard myself as having even to the slightest degree *disproved* the
divine origin of the Torah. All that I have shown is that one particular
famous argument *for* its divine origin does not work.
David Levene
Department of Classics
University of Durham
Hadass Eviatar
>
> Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>
> : Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
>
> of light. (Extra bonus points -- or perhaps extra points deducted --
> for any physics nerds who know which units I'm talking about.)
It's been a very long time, but this sounds like the wonderful units in
which c = h-bar = G. Those were fun to work with, luckily the results
never had to be applied to the real world ...
Kol tuv, Hadass
--
Dr. Hadass Eviatar (XX) mailto:evi...@ibd.nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada Phone: (204) 984 - 4535
Institute for Biodiagnostics Fax: (204) 984 - 7036
435 Ellice Avenue, Winnipeg,MB,R3B 1Y6 http://www.ibd.nrc.ca/~eviatar
Obligatory disclaimer: NRC wouldn't dream of saying a thing like that.
Rafael
Whoa! I wish I had the time to answer your lenghty diatribe of the
Kuzari argument ad seriatum. Instead I'll just toss back a question:
Are there any other religions that claim to have experienced national
prophecy (i.e. the entire ancestry of a particular nation witnessing a
supernatural event simultaneously)?
Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35B35874...@nyct.net>...
>D S Levene wrote:
>
>Whoa! I wish I had the time to answer your lenghty diatribe of the
>Kuzari argument ad seriatum. Instead I'll just toss back a question:
Interesting. Very interesting. Do what he did was a "diatribe"? What a
wonderful way to dismiss a completely scholarly piece that was magnificently
and thoroughly presented! A diatribe!
Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
[rest snipped]
Shelly
Rafael
> Interesting. Very interesting. Do what he did was a "diatribe"? What a
> wonderful way to dismiss a completely scholarly piece that was magnificently
> and thoroughly presented! A diatribe!
I used the term "diatribe" as "an extensive or exhaustive discussion" as
opposed to "a strain of abusive or railing language." If my choice
offends Prof. Levene, I will quickly retract it.
> Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
And you offer nothing to the discussion, Shelley.
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: fundamentals of _that_ C are far too flexible; they have already been
: superseded by C++ (which, as we all know, is really D)!
some naive people think that C++ is O. or that R++ is C.
they are wrong!
first it is a bad practive to call variables O -
it can be confused with 0 on traditional pre-Shulkhan Oruch terminals.
second, when operations are defined on male converts
it is G-- = R, R-- = C, C-- = O (O-- is of course O).
(that proves of course that '--' has a less than 1 norm, and
O is a fixed point as it should be)
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Jonathan J. Baker
>Unless, of course, you mean _that_ C. But why would anyone want to
>convert to _that_ C. We all agree that the Blue Book was written
>by men (and men who never even _claimed_ Divine inspiration). The
>fundamentals of _that_ C are far too flexible; they have already been
>superseded by C++ (which, as we all know, is really D)!
YM "P". HTH.
(For the uninitiated: first there was BCPL, the "British Computer
Programming Language" (which was, BTW< the first available true
compiler for the Mac), which was superseded by B, which was superseded
by C. So what comes next? P!
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35B36346...@nyct.net>...
>Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Very interesting. Do what he did was a "diatribe"? What a
>> wonderful way to dismiss a completely scholarly piece that was
magnificently
>> and thoroughly presented! A diatribe!
>
>I used the term "diatribe" as "an extensive or exhaustive discussion" as
>opposed to "a strain of abusive or railing language." If my choice
>offends Prof. Levene, I will quickly retract it.
===================================================================
Main Entry: di戢暗ribe
Pronunciation: 'dI-&-"trIb
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribE pastime, discourse, from
diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub -- more at
THROW
Date: 1581
1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironical or satirical criticism
===================================================================
First: Notice that your "usage" is "archaic. The common usages are 2 and 3
and not 1.
Second: Your posting is in the public domain, not email, so your
implication here of Prof. Levene being offending as the only one of
importance is not appropriate. Rather, it is for anyone who completely
agrees with him.
>
>> Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
>
>And you offer nothing to the discussion, Shelley.
"Shelly". Au contraire. I pointed out where you had dismissed an
exceedingly scholararly discussion which was not to your liking as a
"diatribe". I consider that quite important for it then reflects upon
whatever _you_ may have to say. Of course, YMMV.
Shelly
Simcha Streltsov
: argument depends on at least four false premises. For a random
: counterexample, consider, for example, the Theban foundation legend,
: according to which the original Thebans sprung fully-formed from the earth
: after their lawgiver, Cadmus, had sowed dragons' teeth into it. If (as
this is an interesting subject that goes far beyond my competence
in history, but interests me as a valid statistical question.
first, do we have enough claims like that and what their features are:
do they claim to have written documents, or at least other artifacts that go
back to the time of the claimed origin? say, did Thebans keep
any of hte remaining teeth, or dentures or something?
can we list a reasonable list of such claims?
: But even if there *were* no counterexamples, the Kuzari's argument
: would still be fatally flawed, because, as I said, it depends on a set of
: erroneous underlying assumptions:
these are all reasonable questions, IMHO, this century gives enough
information to think twice about Kuzari argument - we saw how
a powerful propaganda machine in Communist and Nazi states
moved people into bizarre theories and beliefs in several years -
and this in the age of book, newspapers, radios, etc.
what _does_ add to the power of Kuzari is the forecasting power
of the tradition in verifiable history - Torah says that Jews will be
important in history - and they are, that they'll suffer, etc - and they
did.
Maybe we can compute some numbers - let's collect all ancient claims
similar to Kuzari, and estimate their validity both from the POV of
verifiability and predictive power, and see whether Judaism is
an outlier, or simply one of more successful ones
rafael
> First: Notice that your "usage" is "archaic. The common usages are 2 and 3
> and not 1.
It was number one on my on-line dictionary and it didn't say "archaic."
If it makes you happy, I'll retract ahead of time and replace it with
the word "criticism."
> Second: Your posting is in the public domain, not email, so your
> implication here of Prof. Levene being offending as the only one of
> importance is not appropriate. Rather, it is for anyone who completely
> agrees with him.
> >> Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
> >
> >And you offer nothing to the discussion, Shelley.
>
> "Shelly". Au contraire. I pointed out where you had dismissed an
> exceedingly scholararly discussion which was not to your liking as a
> "diatribe". I consider that quite important for it then reflects upon
> whatever _you_ may have to say. Of course, YMMV.
You assume I've dismissed his post. I haven't. I just didn't respond
line by line. I'm hoping we'll have an enlightening discussion on the
points he raised.
Now do you have anything intelligent to say on this subject, or are you
just going to cheerlead?
Rafael
rafael
just add a thought or two prior to his next reply>
Simcha Streltsov wrote:
> first, do we have enough claims like that and what their features are:
> do they claim to have written documents, or at least other artifacts that go
> back to the time of the claimed origin? say, did Thebans keep
> any of hte remaining teeth, or dentures or something?
> can we list a reasonable list of such claims?
This myth about the Thebans seems more akin to a creation story than
Torah MiSinai. The creation story is certainly not unique to Judaism
(nor is the Flood). What is unique to Judaism (AFAIK, and I hope Prof.
Levene will correct me if I'm wrong) is its origin in simultaneous,
national prophecy. The strength of the claim is in inverse proportion to
the number of people it involves (3,000,000 in our case).
It is certainly possible to synthesize an elaborate explanation for
Torah MiSinai, but if such an explanation is so plausible, one would
expect to find such claims among other nations. It is after all, a very
strong claim, as any later religious claims to the contrary would demand
a "repeat performance" (see the Torah's prescription for a false
prophet). That other religions (most notably Xianity and Islam) felt
obliged to "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims (as opposed
to concocting their own national prophecy myth) should cause one to
wonder.
Rafael
Harvey S. Cohen
>[sd]
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>Whoa! I wish I had the time to answer your lenghty diatribe of the
>Kuzari argument ad seriatum. Instead I'll just toss back a question:
>
>prophecy (i.e. the entire ancestry of a particular nation witnessing a
>supernatural event simultaneously)?
IMHO calling David's scrupulously polite, elegantly reasoned, and beautifully
written argument a "diatribe" reveals a serious lack of either derech eretz or
facility with English. I hope it's the latter.
I think it is unfortunate when a someone requires specious flummery like this,
or the "divine watchmaker," or Bible codes, to support their Judaism. It makes
their faith dependent on a frail reed.
Harvey S. Cohen
>[sd]
>what _does_ add to the power of Kuzari is the forecasting power
>of the tradition in verifiable history - Torah says that Jews will be
>important in history - and they are, that they'll suffer, etc - and they
>did.
If a person's Judaism depends on such specious support, he is easy prey for the
first fortune teller or magician who crosses his path.
rafael
> IMHO calling David's scrupulously polite, elegantly reasoned, and beautifully
> written argument a "diatribe" reveals a serious lack of either derech eretz or
> facility with English. I hope it's the latter.
I hope it's the latter, as well.
> I think it is unfortunate when a someone requires specious flummery like this,
> or the "divine watchmaker," or Bible codes, to support their Judaism. It makes
> their faith dependent on a frail reed.
Now who's lacking derech eretz? Prof. Levene has indeed offered some
well-thought-out reasons to challenge the Kuzari's classic argument. (I
should have been clearer about this in my first reply.) However, I am
not yet satisfied with his explanation (as I've pointed in out in
another post).
It would be nice if all posters could disagree as eloquently and
substantially as Prof. Levene has.
Rafael
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > I direct you to the "More fundamentals" thread; I would like to see you
> > answer Jay and Robert's objections.
>
> Answered Jay already.
But not my follow up.
--
Jay S. Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET>
http://members.tripod.com/~jlapidus/index.html
Simcha Streltsov
: If a person's Judaism depends on such specious support, he is easy prey for the
: first fortune teller or magician who crosses his path.
one of the 1st times I heard it articulated to the extreme was
in Vienna 1990 - an old Rabbi frmo Baden-Baden, Nazi camp survivor, who
was coming to visit Russians passing thru Vienna - I dont remember his
name unfortunately - in his half-Polish, half-Russian words
"Judaism is a materialistic science - it can be proven thru looking
at Jewish history" - and with this POV he did not look like an easy
prey of any magician.
But then any person who claims to listen to reasning, can be an
easy prey to the arguments of someone - maybe even someone evil! -
so you are right - it is much safer simply to assert one's views,
and just say "I believe my opinions are so and so"
Richard Schultz
: Main Entry: di戢暗ribe. . .
: 1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
: 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
: 3 : ironical or satirical criticism
But just ask him to define "ignoramus" and see how far that gets you. . .
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
: > Actually, I thought to convert to C you had to multiply by the speed
: > of light. (Extra bonus points -- or perhaps extra points deducted --
: > for any physics nerds who know which units I'm talking about.)
: It's been a very long time, but this sounds like the wonderful units in
: which c = h-bar = G. Those were fun to work with, luckily the results
: never had to be applied to the real world ...
No, that's not it. You're thinking of the system where c = h-bar = G = 1,
which makes a lot of calculations much simpler. In the conversion to
C I was thinking of, you have to multiply by (small) c (~3 x 10^8 m/sec).
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."
Sheldon Glickler
rafael wrote in message <35B3CC...@nyct.net>...
>Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>
>> First: Notice that your "usage" is "archaic. The common usages are 2
and 3
>> and not 1.
>
>It was number one on my on-line dictionary and it didn't say "archaic."
>If it makes you happy, I'll retract ahead of time and replace it with
>the word "criticism."
>
>> Second: Your posting is in the public domain, not email, so your
>> implication here of Prof. Levene being offending as the only one of
>> importance is not appropriate. Rather, it is for anyone who completely
>> agrees with him.
>
>> >> Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
>> >
>> >And you offer nothing to the discussion, Shelley.
>>
>> "Shelly". Au contraire. I pointed out where you had dismissed an
>> exceedingly scholararly discussion which was not to your liking as a
>> "diatribe". I consider that quite important for it then reflects upon
>> whatever _you_ may have to say. Of course, YMMV.
>
>You assume I've dismissed his post. I haven't. I just didn't respond
Sure looked that way to me!
>line by line. I'm hoping we'll have an enlightening discussion on the
>points he raised.
>
>Now do you have anything intelligent to say on this subject, or are you
>just going to cheerlead?
No, I will let him continue. You see, I too know when to defer to someone
else. He is vastly more knowledgeable on this subject.
Shelly
>
>Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
Richard Schultz wrote in message <6p1686$llo$7...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>...
>Sheldon Glickler (shel...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
>: Main Entry: di戢暗ribe. . .
>: 1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
>: 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
>: 3 : ironical or satirical criticism
>
>But just ask him to define "ignoramus" and see how far that gets you. . .
>
I (unfortunately) stumbled across this at work where I don't have a good
kill filter and I accidentally hit the wrong line in the listing of email.
so, in this one instance:
From:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary (Merriam-Webster)
Main Entry: ig搖o斟a搶us
Pronunciation: "ig-n&-'rA-m&s also -'ra-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mus搪s also ig搖o斟a搶i /-mE/
Etymology: Ignoramus, ignorant lawyer in Ignoramus (1615), play by George
Ruggle, from Latin, literally, we are ignorant of
Date: circa 1616
: an utterly ignorant person : DUNCE
From the thesaurus:
Entry Word: ignoramus
Function: n
Text: Synonyms DUNCE, dullard, dullhead, dumbbell, ||dummkopf, dummy, idiot,
moron, simpleton, stupid
For the definition, note the word "utterly". It is all-important
Lets go over the synonyms again:
"dunce", "dullard", "dullhead", "dumbbell", "dummkopf", "dummy", "idiot",
"moron", "simpleton", "stupid". Sure, not a single one of these is a
personal insult. Frankly, I find it hard to find a single one of these that
is _not_ a personal insult.
This speaks volumes about one who will translate this definition along with
the synonyms to simply "ignorant of a particular subject".
Shelly
Robert Rubinoff
><As I was hoping to get a more speedy response from Prof. Levene, I'll
>just add a thought or two prior to his next reply>
>Simcha Streltsov wrote:
>> first, do we have enough claims like that and what their features are:
>> do they claim to have written documents, or at least other artifacts that go
>> back to the time of the claimed origin? say, did Thebans keep
>> any of hte remaining teeth, or dentures or something?
>> can we list a reasonable list of such claims?
>This myth about the Thebans seems more akin to a creation story than
>Torah MiSinai. The creation story is certainly not unique to Judaism
>(nor is the Flood). What is unique to Judaism (AFAIK, and I hope Prof.
>Levene will correct me if I'm wrong) is its origin in simultaneous,
>national prophecy. The strength of the claim is in inverse proportion to
>the number of people it involves (3,000,000 in our case).
No, the usual creation story took place at most a few people around, and most
of it happens before the people show up.
But the Thebes story involved a large number of people, certainly a few
thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current inhabitants of
the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the Kuzari argument: how
could someone have convinced them that something miraculous had happened to
their ancestors, as a group, without *anyone* having heard it from their
parents?
Robert
Rafael
>
> In article <35B2C4...@nyct.net>,
> raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> > jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > I direct you to the "More fundamentals" thread; I would like to see you
> > > answer Jay and Robert's objections.
> >
> > Answered Jay already.
>
> But not my follow up.
Where is it? Can you post it again or e-mail it?
Rafael
Rafael
> If a person's Judaism depends on such specious support, he is easy prey for the
> first fortune teller or magician who crosses his path.
Do not seek out mediums, nor seek out oracles,
so as to defile yourselves through them. I am
God your Lord. (Lev. 19:31)
If a person turns to the mediums and oracles, so as
to prostitute himself to their way, I will direct
My anger against him, and cut him off from his people.
(Lev. 20:6)
The nations that you are driving out listen to
astrologers and stick diviners, but what God has
given you is totally different. (Deut. 18:14)
If there arise among you a prophet or a
dreamer of dreams and he gives you a sign or a
wonder, and the sign or the wonder of which he
spoke to you comes to pass, and he says, "Let us
go after other gods which you have not known
and let us serve them, do not listen to the words
of that prophet or dreamer. G-d your lord is testing
you to see if you are truly able to love G-d your Lord
with all your heart and all your soul. (Deut. 13:2-6)
(thanks to R. Aryeh Kaplan and R. Yisroel Chait for translations)
Rafael
Rafael
> No, the usual creation story took place at most a few people around, and most
> of it happens before the people show up.
>
> But the Thebes story involved a large number of people, certainly a few
> thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current inhabitants of
> the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the Kuzari argument: how
> could someone have convinced them that something miraculous had happened to
> their ancestors, as a group, without *anyone* having heard it from their
> parents?
I'm at a distinct disadvantage, as all I know of the Thebes myth is what
you and Prof. Levene have told here, but to continue my defense of the
Kuzari argument, I have another question:
How convinced were the Thebans?
We have in the Torah, after the splitting of the sea, God saying to
Moses:
I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that all
the people will hear when I speak to you. They will
then also believe in you forever. (Exodus 19:9)
As 3,300 years later, we still find millions of Jews believing in Torah
MiSinai (plus the other world religions who have latched on to it), is
fair to compare it to a myth that people probably haven't taken
seriously for thousands of years?
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: But the Thebes story involved a large number of people, certainly a few
: thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current
: inhabitants of
: the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the Kuzari argument: how
we can easily come up with a quick list of differences - written sources?
number of people? time frame? etc - but this quickly become too subjective.
I very much prefer, if you could first compile a list of such stories
and then look for similarities and dis-similarities in the whole list
Robert Rubinoff
>Robert Rubinoff wrote:
>
>> No, the usual creation story took place at most a few people around, and most
>> of it happens before the people show up.
>>
>> thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current inhabitants of
>> the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the Kuzari argument: how
>> their ancestors, as a group, without *anyone* having heard it from their
>> parents?
>I'm at a distinct disadvantage, as all I know of the Thebes myth is what
>you and Prof. Levene have told here,
Let me be clear; I don't know anything about the Thebes myth except for what
Dr. Levene posted. I was just pointing out ways in which what he described is
more like the Kuzari argument and less like a typical creation story.
Robert
Rafael
> Let me be clear; I don't know anything about the Thebes myth except for what
> Dr. Levene posted. I was just pointing out ways in which what he described is
> more like the Kuzari argument and less like a typical creation story.
Hopefully, then, Prof. Levene will pick up on my question.
Rafael
Jay Lapidus
<35B46C10...@nyct.net>,
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
REPOST:
In article <35B15E...@nyct.net>,
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <35A9EE0E...@nyct.net>,
> > Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
> > > jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > That is, more than what R' Hai Gaon, the Conservative poseq, had found
> > > > necessary!
> > > You mean he rejected Torah MiSinai and other fundamentals of Judaism?
> > Non sequitur.
> Not really. Before C made any major practical halakhic changes, the
> gedolim (Torah giants) of the American O community rejected them as
> heretical.
What "gedolim of the American O community"? Oh sure, you can name
names, but who says that they speak for the majority of
synagogue-affiliated American Jews? "Heretical"? Perhaps, the ones
who label others as "heretics" are the actual heretics themselves.
> > > I think not.
> > You said it, not I!
> > Rafael, I have news for you. Every Tanna, every Amora, every Gaon and every
> > Rishon was a Conservative Jew. Conservative Judaism originated with HaZaL
> > (on God's behalf) and has developed over through the centuries to our own
> > times.
> LOL.
LOL all you want, but you are going to have to do more than that. C
Judaism is an authentic continuation of the Judaism of the Tradition.
Orthodoxy certainly does not have a greater claim to the Tradition.
> > Rafael, if I may ask, which "fundamentals of Judaism" do *you* reject? If
you
> > claim that you reject none of them, then I'll ask, which ones do you have
> > trouble accepting fully?
> Of Rambam's 13 Ikkarim, I reject none and have no trouble accecting any
> of them fully. It's called faith ("Ani maamin be'emunah shelamah..."). I
> don't *know* these things. I *believe* them.
As you yourself said, "I think not." Do you really mean that you have
never questioned any of what you consider to be "fundamental beliefs"?
Have you examined them in depth?
Kol tuv,
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
******************************
http://members.tripod.com/~jlapidus/index.html
Simcha Streltsov
: names, but who says that they speak for the majority of
: synagogue-affiliated American Jews? "Heretical"? Perhaps, the ones
what does 'affiliated' mean?
D S Levene
: Are there any other religions that claim to have experienced national
: prophecy (i.e. the entire ancestry of a particular nation witnessing a
: supernatural event simultaneously)?
Yes. For example, the Crisans (Crisa was a city-state in Phocis, in
central Greece). There was a famous temple of Apollo in the city: the
Crisans claimed that this temple was founded following an appearance by
Apollo to the entire city, at which he commanded the inhabitants to set up
the cult, gave them instructions for its operation, as well as some more
general ethical advice. He warned them that if they disobeyed him they
would be punished. However, centuries later the Crisans started acting
immorally, whereupon Apollo forsook them, and they were conquered by
Delphi in the so-called First Sacred War. The conquest is historical; the
account of the foundation (needless to say) is not. See the Homeric Hymn
to Pythian Apollo 440-544; also Pausanias 10.37.5-8.
David Levene
Department of Classics
University of Durham
D S Levene
: I used the term "diatribe" as "an extensive or exhaustive discussion" as
: opposed to "a strain of abusive or railing language." If my choice
: offends Prof. Levene, I will quickly retract it.
No offence taken!
D S Levene
: D S Levene (D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk) wrote:
: : argument depends on at least four false premises. For a random
: : counterexample, consider, for example, the Theban foundation legend,
: : according to which the original Thebans sprung fully-formed from the earth
: : after their lawgiver, Cadmus, had sowed dragons' teeth into it. If (as
: this is an interesting subject that goes far beyond my competence
: in history, but interests me as a valid statistical question.
: first, do we have enough claims like that and what their features are:
: do they claim to have written documents, or at least other artifacts that go
: back to the time of the claimed origin? say, did Thebans keep
: any of hte remaining teeth, or dentures or something?
: can we list a reasonable list of such claims?
Perhaps *someone* could list such claims - but it would be a massive piece
of work, and well beyond the time I have available!
All I can do is say that yes, there are a lot of comparable claims of
various sorts. As far as supporting artifacts go, I'm not sure that
enough is known about the details of Theban antiquarianism to say. The
only physical evidence that I am aware of that they used to support it was
that the site of the miracle was recorded (see Pausanias 9.10.1) and that
quite a number of Thebans were supposed to have had a special sort of
birthmark in the shape of a spear's head (the men sprang up armed), which
was held to validate the story (see e.g. Aristotle, "Poetics" 1454b22).
But there may well have been other things that we don't know about.
Simcha Streltsov
: Delphi in the so-called First Sacred War. The conquest is historical; the
: account of the foundation (needless to say) is not. See the Homeric Hymn
: to Pythian Apollo 440-544; also Pausanias 10.37.5-8.
do we have verifiable accounts that Crisans en masse knew and
believed in this story?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
D S Levene
: <As I was hoping to get a more speedy response from Prof. Levene, I'll
: just add a thought or two prior to his next reply>
Apologies for the delay - but I found myself with rather a lot of real
work to be getting on with!
: This myth about the Thebans seems more akin to a creation story than
: Torah MiSinai. The creation story is certainly not unique to Judaism
: (nor is the Flood). What is unique to Judaism (AFAIK, and I hope Prof.
: Levene will correct me if I'm wrong) is its origin in simultaneous,
: national prophecy. The strength of the claim is in inverse proportion to
: the number of people it involves (3,000,000 in our case).
It is not unique to Judaism, as I have said on the other thread. But your
mentioning the numbers allows me to point out another problem with the
Kuzari's argument.
The Kuzari's argument depends on the idea of a chain of tradition
running through an entire nation: at no point could one (according to the
argument) *introduce* the claim of national prophecy, since any attempt to
do so would be immediately shown up as a fraud: people would know that
they had not heard of such a prophecy from their parents and grandparents.
This chain of tradition thus must go back to Sinai itself; and at Sinai
itself the prophecy could not be a fraud, since it was seen by the entire
nation, and collusion would be impossible.
I have indicated in my first post on this subject that this argument
depends on a set of false premises; but even if it did not, there is
another problem with it. The tradition of prophecy at Sinai is regarded
as a self-validating claim. But the *number* of people who were there at
Sinai is not similarly self-validating: the only source for it is the
Torah itself, and no one can claim that it could be exposed as a lie were
it altered. Even on the Kuzari's argument, a text that was *identical*
with the prophecy *could* obviously be introduced at a later point, by
which time people would know of their ancestral tradition of a revelation,
but not of the numbers of their ancestors who witnessed it.
Well, so what? Suppose it were not 3,000,000, but "only" 2,000,000,
or even 200,000? The "impossibility of collusion" point would appear to
work just as well. But the problem is that it is possible for all Jews
(barring converts, of course) to be descended from just a handful of
people who stood at Sinai. In which case the tradition would still be
validated, as per the Kuzari's argument, as being handed down from parent
to child, but one can no longer assert that there is no possibility of
collusion at the outset.
This may seem simply an academic point, given that I have shown such
serious problems with the Kuzari's argument anyway; but there is a more
important issue that arises out of it. The problem is that a great deal
of weight seems to be being placed on something that is far and away the
most problematic aspect of the whole story historically. There are
secular historians who accept that there genuinely was an Exodus - not
*all* that many, but it is a respectable minority historical opinion. But
even those who accept the Exodus do not (at least in my experience) accept
these massive numbers, or anything like them.
Speaking for myself, I know of no historical evidence against a
Revelation at Sinai. But I'm afraid that the idea of 3,000,000 people
spending 40 years in the desert, and yet leaving no archaeological trace
of their presence, frankly stretches my credulity. It is not for want of
trying to find it: there have been extensive excavations in the Sinai.
And to find evidence of that many people in a sparsely settled area should
not even require excavation: there would be surface features that would
attest to their presence. There appears to be nothing.
What is worse is that, even if these people somehow managed to get
across the desert, they appear to vanish once they cross the Jordan. We
can make reasonable estimates of the size of populations from
archaeological remains: but the *entire population* of Israel west of the
Jordan in the relevant period seems never to much exceed 50,000 from well
before the time of the Exodus on any dating right up to the early
monarchic period (for the figures, see I. Finkelstein, "The Archaeology of
the Israelite Settlement" (Jerusalem, 1988), 332-4; also Broshi &
Finkelstein in "Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research" 287
(1992)). While there is still plenty of archaeology left to do in Israel,
it is far and away the most intensively excavated country in the world.
The chances that we will now discover a set of population centres and
infrastructure extensive enough to have supported a population sixty times
as large as anything previously known, is approximately zero.
Thus I have to conclude that, for whatever reason, the population
figures given in the Torah are massively inaccurate. Accordingly, any
argument that bases itself upon those population figures is ipso facto
flawed.
[Note: I am not sure about the theology of this, but I suspect -
corrections welcome - that, regardless of the archaeology, Orthodox Jews
are *required* to accept the historicity of the Torah's figures, since
they come from God. If so, I have no wish to challenge them on it, but
simply to point out that they are still not entitled to base an argument
of the Kuzari's sort upon those figures. The Kuzari is seeking to prove
the divine origin of the Torah. One cannot without circularity employ
data whose acceptance *depends* on the divine origin of the Torah.]
: It is certainly possible to synthesize an elaborate explanation for
: Torah MiSinai, but if such an explanation is so plausible, one would
: expect to find such claims among other nations. It is after all, a very
: strong claim, as any later religious claims to the contrary would demand
: a "repeat performance" (see the Torah's prescription for a false
: prophet). That other religions (most notably Xianity and Islam) felt
: obliged to "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims (as opposed
: to concocting their own national prophecy myth) should cause one to
: wonder.
I have an uncomfortable feeling that you are hovering on the edge of a
classic ethnocentric trap here - I don't think you've quite fallen into it
yet (!), but you do look as if you might be in danger of doing so.
The trap is one to which we are all prone: finding an aspect of our
culture that appears unique, and then adjusting our value system in order
to prove that this aspect is in fact superior. The simple answer to your
question is that it is not nearly as a strong claim as you think it is.
This is not only a question of the possibilities of invention that I
referred to in my other post (though those are clearly relevant), but also
that in practice it is not *needed* to provide validity: plenty of
religions do perfectly well in attracting adherents without it. In
discussions of the validity of religion in the ancient world, one never
(as far as I can recall) finds anyone on any side of the argument
suggesting that there is a significant distinction between national and
non-national prophecies. In fact, the only time one *ever* finds people
distinguishing national from non-national prophecies in terms of validity
is in the context of Jewish apologetic works like the Kuzari, who have,
let us say, an interest in loading the argument this way.
As to why, if the prophecies were not true, Jews (and Crisans and
others) would have national prophecies, whereas Christians and Muslims do
not, I suspect that the answer is much simpler: it is because, even if
there was no divine revelation, Judaism as a national religion would have
a sociological interest in providing a national history of the religion,
whereas Christianity and Islam as non-national religions do not.
But once again, let me stress that nothing I have said is in the
slightest degree disproof that the Torah is a product of divine revelation
on Sinai. My discussion is *only* addressed to the question of whether
the particular arguments that the Kuzari uses to demonstrate the
historicity of the revelation actually work.
D S Levene
: How convinced were the Thebans?
Very convinced. Plato, "Laws" 663E-664A uses this Theban myth as an
example of how easy it is to convince the vast mass of people of ludicrous
things (Plato was not a Theban, of course!): unless Plato was introducing
a straw man, we may deduce that the great mass of Thebans did indeed
believe in this myth. Likewise we have evidence that other myths of this
sort were widely believed in.
: We have in the Torah, after the splitting of the sea, God saying to
: Moses:
: I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that all
: the people will hear when I speak to you. They will
: then also believe in you forever. (Exodus 19:9)
: As 3,300 years later, we still find millions of Jews believing in Torah
: MiSinai (plus the other world religions who have latched on to it), is
: fair to compare it to a myth that people probably haven't taken
: seriously for thousands of years?
The fact that people no longer believe in the Theban myth is irrelevant to
the Kuzari's argument: the fact that at *any* stage the great mass of the
population believed in it shows that it is possible to persuade the entire
population of a national supernatural event that is not true, which makes
it an effective counterexample to the Kuzari (though please note the
caveat about the Theban story that I have mentioned in my response to
Robert!). The fact that they may later cease to believe in it is
irrelevant.
D S Levene
: No, the usual creation story took place at most a few people around,
: and most of it happens before the people show up.
: But the Thebes story involved a large number of people, certainly a few
: thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current
: inhabitants of the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the
: Kuzari argument: how could someone have convinced them that something
: miraculous had happened to their ancestors, as a group, without *anyone*
: having heard it from their parents?
I am afraid that I have inadvertently been misleading here - and I must
apologise to both Rafael and Robert for it.
When I cited the Theban myth as an example, I did call it a "random"
example. In retrospect it was not the best parallel, because, while it is
true that thousands of Thebans claimed descent from these men born from
dragons' teeth, the number of men who were supposedly so born was only
five (see Aeschylus fr.376). This may matter less than it appears (note
my point about the problems of numbers at the Sinai revelation in my
other post); nevertheless a better example - and the one I *should* have
picked! - would be the Locrians, who likewise believed their ancestors to
have been born out of (in this case) stones thrown onto the earth, and
where the number supposedly so born *was* a full population (Strabo
7.7.2). Robert's basic point thus stands (and add the Crisans, to whom I
referred in my other post), but I apologise for the misinformation.
Colin Rosenthal
>D S Levene (D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: Delphi in the so-called First Sacred War. The conquest is historical; the
>: account of the foundation (needless to say) is not. See the Homeric Hymn
>: to Pythian Apollo 440-544; also Pausanias 10.37.5-8.
>
>do we have verifiable accounts that Crisans en masse knew and
>believed in this story?
If we did would you accept it as proof of the existence of Apollo?
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
Simcha Streltsov
: >do we have verifiable accounts that Crisans en masse knew and
: >believed in this story?
: If we did would you accept it as proof of the existence of Apollo?
my position is as follows: Kuzari argument suggests very general rule
that classifies Judaism in 1 group and all others in another.
We now know probably more history than in Kuzari times (maybe not), thus
we can collect evidence that is independent from Kuzari's thinking -
i.e. Kuzari posted his hypothesis independently from this data.
thus, if we can not identify other traditions that are similar to
Judaism in the features identified by Kuzari - then his hypothesis
is strong. If we can find such other traditions, then we can question
Kuzari principle (because, as you mention, these traditions will be
probably incompatible with Judaism) - or even try to see
where it breaks
Simcha Streltsov
: work just as well. But the problem is that it is possible for all Jews
: (barring converts, of course) to be descended from just a handful of
: people who stood at Sinai. In which case the tradition would still be
: validated, as per the Kuzari's argument, as being handed down from parent
: to child, but one can no longer assert that there is no possibility of
: collusion at the outset.
this is an interesting counter-argument. In fact, if at
any time in history, number of Jews would reduce to any number N < 3 mln,
then only that N can be proven even according to absolute Kuzari
principle (i.e. 10 people could say that they are descendants of
a million). this also, of course, means that Kuzari does not work with
pre-Mitzraim events.
so, one way to demolish Kuzari argument would be to show that it is
possible historically that number of Jews was small any time between
some time after Sinai to some time where we have historical evidence
to the opposite (King David's times?)
OTOH, according to the same Kuzari,
: archaeological remains: but the *entire population* of Israel west of the
: Jordan in the relevant period seems never to much exceed 50,000 from well
: before the time of the Exodus on any dating right up to the early
how could one convince 50,000 people that 1 generation ago there were
3 mln? (not that it is not possible, of course - check, for example,
numbners of people who were killed or died in Auschwitz -
adjusted by millions in several decades)
: The trap is one to which we are all prone: finding an aspect of our
: culture that appears unique, and then adjusting our value system in order
: to prove that this aspect is in fact superior. The simple answer to your
: question is that it is not nearly as a strong claim as you think it is.
I totally agree that this subjective (called 'bias' by Herman and other
learned ppl) is the most important thing here. That is why something
like Kuzari principle is a good point of reference:
1. it maybe biased, but it has reasonable ground in logic
2. it is very generic, i.e. very small 'fit' to a particular
culture can be made
3. it is an old statement, thus can be tested by new data that
arose independently after Kuzari
4. I proposed to first collect examples based on some sort of
scientific criterion exactly in order to avoid fitting the
features for each example - not in order to make your life
difficult. (how about a blinded selection - can you ask
a non-Jewish grad students to go thru an encyclopedia
and compile a list of national traditions of revelations?
IMHO, it is almost the best possible setting you can hope
in designing a statistical test for historical events
rafel
try to be brief.>
D S Levene wrote:
<snip>
> it altered. Even on the Kuzari's argument, a text that was *identical*
> with the prophecy *could* obviously be introduced at a later point, by
> which time people would know of their ancestral tradition of a revelation,
> but not of the numbers of their ancestors who witnessed it.
That Judaism is the only religion to make a claim of such a large number
*and get away with it* is what impresses me with the Kuzari argument.
What's more, we're still here thousands of years later to tell about it
(but I think you address this point in another post).
<snip>
> Speaking for myself, I know of no historical evidence against a
> Revelation at Sinai. But I'm afraid that the idea of 3,000,000 people
> spending 40 years in the desert, and yet leaving no archaeological trace
> of their presence, frankly stretches my credulity. It is not for want of
> trying to find it: there have been extensive excavations in the Sinai.
> And to find evidence of that many people in a sparsely settled area should
> not even require excavation: there would be surface features that would
> attest to their presence. There appears to be nothing.
Actually, (while archeology is hardly a hobby of mine) I did read about
an inscription found in the Sinai desert that is dated to that era,
which mentions the name Chovav, another name for Jethro, Moses'
father-in-law, who spent some time in that region.
Also, I thought the conquest of Canaan was well supported (William
Albright's name sticks out in my mind, plus the destroyed cities of Dan,
Hazor & Bethel).
(I have a book on this that I'll have to bring with me to work.)
<snip>
> (1992)). While there is still plenty of archaeology left to do in Israel,
> it is far and away the most intensively excavated country in the world.
> The chances that we will now discover a set of population centres and
> infrastructure extensive enough to have supported a population sixty times
> as large as anything previously known, is approximately zero.
Hey you never know. With all due respect, is your expertise in
archeology, as well? (Although, my layman's understanding is that
archeology is not an exact science. As such, I wouldn't say it could
prove or disprove the Torah's claim about desert settlement.)
<snip>
> referred to in my other post (though those are clearly relevant), but also
> that in practice it is not *needed* to provide validity: plenty of
> religions do perfectly well in attracting adherents without it. In
> discussions of the validity of religion in the ancient world, one never
> (as far as I can recall) finds anyone on any side of the argument
> suggesting that there is a significant distinction between national and
> non-national prophecies. In fact, the only time one *ever* finds people
> distinguishing national from non-national prophecies in terms of validity
> is in the context of Jewish apologetic works like the Kuzari, who have,
I agree with you wholeheartedly about the *need* for such arguments. I
wouldn't stake my faith on any of these empirical "proofs" (in fact, I
didn't). OTHOH, as we live in a positivist culture, rationalistic
arguments are very enticing, after the fact. Perhaps I should be more
careful in trying them out on skeptics, but that's the easiest way for
me to test them out. You've been very helpful in this regard, Prof.
Levene.
> As to why, if the prophecies were not true, Jews (and Crisans and
> others) would have national prophecies, whereas Christians and Muslims do
> not, I suspect that the answer is much simpler: it is because, even if
> there was no divine revelation, Judaism as a national religion would have
> a sociological interest in providing a national history of the religion,
> whereas Christianity and Islam as non-national religions do not.
Good point. (If you will excuse some more of my ethno-/religiocentrism)
the post of mine you originally responded to posited that Judaism is the
only religion that is also a nation (in that one who joins the religion
joins the nation, and one born into the nation, who doesn't subscribe to
the religion, is still a member of the nation). Do you disagree?
> But once again, let me stress that nothing I have said is in the
> slightest degree disproof that the Torah is a product of divine revelation
> on Sinai. My discussion is *only* addressed to the question of whether
> the particular arguments that the Kuzari uses to demonstrate the
> historicity of the revelation actually work.
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: Very convinced. Plato, "Laws" 663E-664A uses this Theban myth as an
: example of how easy it is to convince the vast mass of people of ludicrous
: things (Plato was not a Theban, of course!): unless Plato was introducing
what was Plato's info - was he their contemprary?
btw, R Miller adds some interesting arguments in his "Rejoice O Youth":
par.77:
Sinai tradition is stronger than the tradition that
George Washington existed! - after all most Americans are descendants of
immigrants who came after him
: The fact that people no longer believe in the Theban myth is irrelevant to
: the Kuzari's argument: the fact that at *any* stage the great mass of the
: population believed in it shows that it is possible to persuade the entire
it is irrelvant if you are looking for an absolute statement -
if we are checking probability that Kuzari argument work, we can as
well measure probability that a declared theory/prophecy/system of
prophetic statements is fulfilled/survives, etc -
then these two criteria - let's call them Kuzari index and
Prophecy index of each nation or religion, are almost independent,
therefore True Religion index is their mutiplication, and -
assuming, Judaism gets high marks on both after independent testing -
can make a difference (ie Xianity may be high on Prophecy but low
on Kuzari, Thebans may be high on Kuzari but low on Prophecy -
or may be not low - did Apollo promise them eternity? or only
until those teeth will rot?)
Simcha Streltsov
: true that thousands of Thebans claimed descent from these men born from
: dragons' teeth, the number of men who were supposedly so born was only
: five (see Aeschylus fr.376). This may matter less than it appears (note
oops, maybe an alter Dragon had only five teeth?
: picked! - would be the Locrians, who likewise believed their ancestors to
: have been born out of (in this case) stones thrown onto the earth, and
: where the number supposedly so born *was* a full population (Strabo
: 7.7.2). Robert's basic point thus stands (and add the Crisans, to whom I
was Strabo their contemporary? are we sure we have a real copy of his writings?
(I seem to recall that Strabo has bunch of stories about nations he never saw
: referred in my other post)
btw, what is the story with American Indians? do they have any Kuzari
suspects? he surely was not aware of them?
rafel
D S Levene wrote:
<snip>
> The fact that people no longer believe in the Theban myth is irrelevant to
> the Kuzari's argument: the fact that at *any* stage the great mass of the
> population believed in it shows that it is possible to persuade the entire
> population of a national supernatural event that is not true, which makes
> it an effective counterexample to the Kuzari (though please note the
> caveat about the Theban story that I have mentioned in my response to
> Robert!). The fact that they may later cease to believe in it is
> irrelevant.
In all of your counter-examples, you cite ancient myths which you would
like us to believe were widely accepted (Locians, Crisans and Thebans)
and (I assume) for a respectable number of years. I, at least, am at a
great disadvantage in that I've not personally investigated these
ancient cults (and probably will not get around to doing so any time
soon), so I have to pick your brain (and bookshelves) for details and
evidence. The questions I've asked about the Crisans apply to the
Locians, as well (the Thebes story, as you've amended, is not a myth
about mass-prophecy, so is no longer jermane).
But even without information required to adequately judge whether these
local beliefs truly deserve juxtaposition with Judaism's core miraculous
claim (e.g., how strong is the physical evidence that the masses in
these localities ever really took them seriously and for how long?), the
fact that none of them survived the ancient world IS relevant. My
version of the Kuzari-type argument (as I've never cited the Kuzari,
rather my argument was attributed to it) is that Judaism is the only
religion *to be successful* with such an argument. That others have
tried it and failed after a while comes as no threat to the argument,
but it does challenge the claim that all religions follow the same
formula (that of one "witness" or a small cabal of such), save one.
OTOH, the Torah seems to anticipate such claims:
"See if anything as great as this [mass prophecy at Mt. Sinai] has ever
happened, or if the like has ever been heard. Has any nation ever heard
God speaking out of fire, as you [Israelites] have, and still survived?"
(Deut. 4:32)
As the ancient Greeks are known to have been in contact with the ancient
Hebrews, it could be that they borrowed certain themes and narratives
from them. Whether they were able to maintain public credence in a
theme as incredible as mass prophecy beyond a short time seems crucial
to establishing the strength of my argument. That Jews have taken this
claim out of the ancient world and through modernity, while using it to
remold much of the world from a pagan one into a monothestic one, should
spark questions as to why they succeeded where others failed. Perhaps,
(and I say this only in speculation, as I don't believe religious faith
should hinge on empirical "proofs") it is that these other cults were
using a false claim, whereas the Jews were not.
Rafael
rafel
>
> Rafael (raf...@nyct.net) wrote:
>
> : Are there any other religions that claim to have experienced national
> : prophecy (i.e. the entire ancestry of a particular nation witnessing a
> : supernatural event simultaneously)?
>
> Yes. For example, the Crisans (Crisa was a city-state in Phocis, in
> central Greece). There was a famous temple of Apollo in the city: the
> Crisans claimed that this temple was founded following an appearance by
> Apollo to the entire city, at which he commanded the inhabitants to set up
> the cult, gave them instructions for its operation, as well as some more
> general ethical advice. He warned them that if they disobeyed him they
> would be punished. However, centuries later the Crisans started acting
> immorally, whereupon Apollo forsook them, and they were conquered by
> account of the foundation (needless to say) is not. See the Homeric Hymn
> to Pythian Apollo 440-544; also Pausanias 10.37.5-8.
I know of a Hindu myth where millions of warriors heard Krishna speak to
them, but they were all killed in battle, and the story was only learned
from an unnamed individual later on in history.
As such, I'm wondering whether this myth shares similar origins. How
precise is the history about the city dwellers actually believing this
story? I mean, just because a couple of writers waxed poetic about such
a story doesn't mean people took it seriously, and it certainly didn't
make it past ancient times (which brings us to your next reply...)
Rafael
Y...@my-dejanews.com
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> <Once again, Prof. Levene has overwhelmed me with a prolific burst. I'll
> try to be brief.>
>
[snip]
> > Speaking for myself, I know of no historical evidence against a
> > Revelation at Sinai. But I'm afraid that the idea of 3,000,000 people
> > spending 40 years in the desert, and yet leaving no archaeological trace
> > of their presence, frankly stretches my credulity. It is not for want of
> > trying to find it: there have been extensive excavations in the Sinai.
> > And to find evidence of that many people in a sparsely settled area should
> > not even require excavation: there would be surface features that would
> > attest to their presence. There appears to be nothing.
>
> Actually, (while archeology is hardly a hobby of mine) I did read about
> an inscription found in the Sinai desert that is dated to that era,
> which mentions the name Chovav, another name for Jethro, Moses'
> father-in-law, who spent some time in that region.
>
> Also, I thought the conquest of Canaan was well supported (William
> Albright's name sticks out in my mind, plus the destroyed cities of Dan,
> Hazor & Bethel).
> (I have a book on this that I'll have to bring with me to work.)
[large snip]
Another little bit of info on the issue can be found at:
http://members.tripod.com/~lifsha/judaism/exodus.html
It doesn't deal with the large numbers, though. OTOH, why would the author of
the Torah, whoever he was, make such a careful record of several censuses of
bnei Yisrael? (Let's see, some 621,000 men between 20 and 60; who
extrapolated it to 3 million? Current demographical proportions may not have
been true then.)
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brute force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard
themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals." -- Ayn Rand
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Robert Rubinoff
>D S Levene (D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk) wrote:
>: (barring converts, of course) to be descended from just a handful of
>: people who stood at Sinai. In which case the tradition would still be
>: validated, as per the Kuzari's argument, as being handed down from parent
>: to child, but one can no longer assert that there is no possibility of
>: collusion at the outset.
>this is an interesting counter-argument. In fact, if at
>any time in history, number of Jews would reduce to any number N < 3 mln,
>then only that N can be proven even according to absolute Kuzari
>principle (i.e. 10 people could say that they are descendants of
>a million). this also, of course, means that Kuzari does not work with
>pre-Mitzraim events.
>
>so, one way to demolish Kuzari argument would be to show that it is
>possible historically that number of Jews was small any time between
>some time after Sinai to some time where we have historical evidence
>to the opposite (King David's times?)
Even more than that: all it requires is that a small group of Jews claimed
that the sotry was true, and that the rest (or most of the rest) of the Jews
were sufficiently uncertain about their knowledge of their history that they
were willing to believe it.
And this is a plausible scenario amidst the confusion of the exile and return;
particularly given that Ezra & Nehemiah had the backing of the Persian rulers,
and that the mass of people had drifted away from the traditions of their
ancestors. So the answer to "if this is true, how come my parents didn't know
it and tell me" could be "the history was forgotten amidst the disruption and
trauma of the Exile". (Actually, a similar answer could be given after any of
the many periods of widespread sinning during the Judges and the monarchy.)
Note that I'm not saying that this is what actually happened; I wasn't there,
and I don't know. I'm just saying it's a possibility, and hence a weakness in
the Kuzari agrument.
Robert
Robert Rubinoff
>That Judaism is the only religion to make a claim of such a large number
>*and get away with it* is what impresses me with the Kuzari argument.
>What's more, we're still here thousands of years later to tell about it
>(but I think you address this point in another post).
But the Kuzari argues from the (purported) *impossibility* of the claim being
false. If other people have believed similar claims that are clearly false,
then the "Kuzari" claim must have a fatal flaw, else it would follow that *all*
such claims are true. The fact that we're still around when all those other
folks have either disappeared or abandonned (or forgotten) their claims may be
impressive in a sense, but it has nothing to do with whether the Kuzari
argument is valid.
Robert
Y...@my-dejanews.com
"Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6oj0vs$laa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <6oike4$j...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
> > "Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> >much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
> >>
> >> Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was
> exclusionary
> >> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
> >>
> >> >Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
> >> >you die.")
> >>
> >> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
> >
> >Shelly, you're being (unintentionally, I believe) offensive. These are
> Jewish
> >Sages we're talking about. Whatever opinion you may hold about how informed
> >they were, they were not stupid, and not prone to uttering nonsense, much
> less
> >recording it.
> >
> >When I see a quotation from the Chazal that doesn't make sense, I explore
> the
> >following possibilities:
> >
> >1) It was not translated correctly, or was otherwise garbled in
> transmission.
> >2) It is out of context ("Kill the best of Gentiles" is a good example.)
> >3) The definition of the terms used in the quotation is different from the
> one
> >I'm using.
> >
> >I then ask for clarification or look it up myself. This method usually
> works
> >pretty well. Why don't you two define what you mean by "belief in
> yourself"?
> >Hint: does it have something to do with self-esteem?
>
> My statement of nonsense refers the quote. It it contrary to everything I
> believe (as I understand it from the context of the discussion we were
> having). Yes, it has everything to do with self-esteem, belief in what you
> are doing is right and proper and having the confidence to follow through.
> To defer that kind of belief to "a higher authority" to say "do this, now do
> that, etc." is how I would view a slave -- not an independent, thinking
> human being.
>
> You fully grasped what I meant by this, perhaps because of our extensive
> conversations. I think that he did as well.
Before I begin, I must say I agree with your 2 paragraphs above.
> Lastly, when a sage said something I consider nonsense, that doesn't change
> the evaluation because he was a "sage". [OK Richard, make your cracks. I
> can see them coming].
Here's where I think you missed what I was saying. To use a different
example, suppose someone tells you: "Yisroel Markov said that someone should
beat up Robert Kaiser." Since you know that I can't say such a thing, you
call it nonsense. But the quotation could've been garbled in transmission or
quoted out of context! Perhaps what I really said was: "_meet_ Robert
Kaiser." Perhaps I did say "beat up," but meant "beat up in debate." These
are alternatives 1 and 2 that I discussed above.
In our case, alternative 3 (meaning of words has changed) probably and
hopefully wouldn't apply. But it's a very real possibility with anything
written more than 300 years ago. Consider: a contemporary of Christopher Wren
called his design of St. Paul's Cathedral "Artificial, grandiose, and awful."
He was being complimentary. Those words meant something different then. A
major function of commentaries (meforshim) is to make sure the meaning of the
words is preserved through the ages of Jewish scholarship.
So before you dismiss a statement by a Jewish sage as "nonsense," I think you
ought to consider these 3 possibilities. In our specific case, I think it's 2
and 3 combined. The quote (if I identified it correctly - Rafael?) is from
Pirkei Avot 2:4 where Rabbi Hillel says: "al ta'amin b'atzmekha ad yom
motakh" which does translate as stated. However, it is a part of a rather
lengthy statement, the breadth of which suggests that R. Hillel meant
something different from what Rafael implied and you took issue with. IIRC
the standard interpretation of this statement is "don't think you have
merited the world-to- come until the day you die, for anything can happen in
between." Perhaps someone here can elucidate -- Pirkei Avot is probably the
most commented Mishna in existence.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The daughters of Israel are becoming; it is poverty which makes them
unattractive." -- Talmud Bavli, Nedarim 66b
Rafael
> But the Kuzari argues from the (purported) *impossibility* of the claim being
> false. If other people have believed similar claims that are clearly false,
> then the "Kuzari" claim must have a fatal flaw, else it would follow that *all*
> such claims are true. The fact that we're still around when all those other
> folks have either disappeared or abandonned (or forgotten) their claims may be
> impressive in a sense, but it has nothing to do with whether the Kuzari
> argument is valid.
I should have made it clear that I am only arguing on behalf of the
Kuzari because Prof. Levene attributed what I wrote to Jordi to the
Kuzari. My argument has been one of induction and plausibility. I
suppose that in allowing my statements to be pigeon-holed into the
Kuzari argument that this type of confusion was inevitable.
BTW, I think that ascribing the phrase "impressive in a sense" to Jewish
history does it a gross disservice.
Rafael
Rafael
> Even more than that: all it requires is that a small group of Jews claimed
> that the sotry was true, and that the rest (or most of the rest) of the Jews
> were sufficiently uncertain about their knowledge of their history that they
> were willing to believe it.
>
> And this is a plausible scenario amidst the confusion of the exile and return;
> particularly given that Ezra & Nehemiah had the backing of the Persian rulers,
> and that the mass of people had drifted away from the traditions of their
> ancestors. So the answer to "if this is true, how come my parents didn't know
> it and tell me" could be "the history was forgotten amidst the disruption and
> trauma of the Exile". (Actually, a similar answer could be given after any of
> the many periods of widespread sinning during the Judges and the monarchy.)
That there was attrition amongst the Jews is indeed plausible (after
all, as you say, such losses are recorded throughout Tanakh). However,
without any evidence that Ezra & Nehemiah forced or misled the people
into believing a false claim about their ancestors, I feel that this
argument requires a leap of faith of its own. I would expect at least
*some* written artifacts by a small group of educated sceptics, who
clandestinely preserved the truth (even Soviet Jewry preserved some
traditional practices, books and Judaica, under surveillance by a
totalitarian, anti-religious regime). If the evidence ever turns up,
however, this will be a very strong claim.
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: these localities ever really took them seriously and for how long?), the
: fact that none of them survived the ancient world IS relevant. My
: version of the Kuzari-type argument (as I've never cited the Kuzari,
: rather my argument was attributed to it) is that Judaism is the only
: religion *to be successful* with such an argument. That others have
: tried it and failed after a while comes as no threat to the argument,
AFAIU, Kuzari argument is about impossiblity to forge information known
to many. Survival is an additional, independent, factor that argues
that information about unique Jewish role was a good prediction.
taken together with Kuzari it adds confidence to the claim that
Judaism is correct - _but_ it does not add anything to our attempt
to estimate what is importance of the Kuzari argument itself
Simcha Streltsov
: And this is a plausible scenario amidst the confusion of the exile and return;
: particularly given that Ezra & Nehemiah had the backing of the Persian rulers,
this indeed looks like the weakest (documented) moment in history - and
Gemora Megila mentions that certain letters in the Torah were forgotten
and restored - and wonders about the same things - could it happen or not.
(I assume this Gemora "inspired" one of the first DH authors)
still even in turmoil times, there is a limit t madness say,
now you have many baalei teshuva who come from families that may
lack several generations of tradition - still when they start learning
they can easily get enough evidence from people around them - that yes
this is exactly the same Judaism your grandfather abandoned (_: -
or look at non-O movements: their leaders develop subtle theories about how
halakha developed, but most of their followers know that they are here just
because they dont want to do too much for some reasons.
Rafael
> AFAIU, Kuzari argument is about impossiblity to forge information known
> to many. Survival is an additional, independent, factor that argues
> that information about unique Jewish role was a good prediction.
>
> taken together with Kuzari it adds confidence to the claim that
> Judaism is correct - _but_ it does not add anything to our attempt
> to estimate what is importance of the Kuzari argument itself
I think you've just summed up what I've been arguing. As I've never
given much attention to the Kuzari (I hope to one day soon), I've come
to accept that this argument (which I first learned about in a book
called Permission to Receive, by Lawrence Keleman) is going to be
attributed to it (I guess because it's similar enough and people like to
point to the earliest possible source for ideas).
Limiting the argument to a polemic on the Kuzari, however, was not my
intention (but it is partly my fault that it happened, as I agreed to
the attribution). Rather, I like to look for rational approaches to
Judaism, as an introduction to the real task of building a personal
Jewish faith.
Rafael
Robert Rubinoff
>Robert Rubinoff wrote:
>BTW, I think that ascribing the phrase "impressive in a sense" to Jewish
>history does it a gross disservice.
Of course; I was "typing on one foot", so to speak. What I meant was that the
fact that we (apparently) are the only instance of a group that had a tradition
of a massively public miracle that still survives and maintains that tradition
is not what's impressive. The ability of the Jewish people to survive, thrive,
and have an influence within and contribution to the world far out of
proportion to our numbers is remarkable and impressive in and of itself, but I
don't think that our having the tradition of the revelation at Sinai makes that
survival any more impressive than it otherwise would be.
In other words, the survival of the Jewish people, against all odds, is a
different argument, and a different kind of argument, for the validity of the
Jewish tradition than the argument presented in the Kuzari.
Robert
Rafael
> In other words, the survival of the Jewish people, against all odds, is a
> different argument, and a different kind of argument, for the validity of the
> Jewish tradition than the argument presented in the Kuzari.
Note the '~' in the subject line I've started including in my replies to
this thread. That means that I'm not defending the Kuzari at this point
(as I don't believe it argues the exact same thing I'm arguing).
Yes, our survival is impressive in and of itself. It reminds me of the
story told of King Frederick (?) who asked his Lutheran monk for proof
of God's existence, to which the monk answered "The Jews."
However, what I'm saying is that the tradition of national prophecy at
Sinai (AFAWK, the only such claim to survive the ancient world, and at
such large numbers) and the incredible tenacity of the Jewish nation are
inherently linked. They lend one another support. Without the strength
of the claim, the nation could not have survived. Without the tenacity
of the nation, the claim could not have survived. The two are
essentially the same.
That the Torah makes such claims (as Simcha pointed out) lends greater
support to the argument:
I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that all
the people will hear when I speak to you. They will
also then believe in you forever. (Ex. 19:9)
The few of you who survive in your enemies' lands will
[realize that] your survival is threatened as a result of
your nonobservance. [These few] will also [realize] that
their survival has been threatened because of the
nonobservance of their fathers. (Lev. 26:39, Kaplan trans.)
Thus, even when they are in their enemies land, I will not
grow so disgusted with them nor so tired of them that I
would destroy them and break my covenant with them, since
I am God their Lord. (Lev. 26:44, Kaplan trans.)
You know the rest.
Rafael
Zev Sero
>In article <35B6A8...@nyct.net>, rafel <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>That Judaism is the only religion to make a claim of such a large number
>>*and get away with it* is what impresses me with the Kuzari argument.
>>What's more, we're still here thousands of years later to tell about it
>>(but I think you address this point in another post).
>But the Kuzari argues from the (purported) *impossibility* of the claim being
>false. If other people have believed similar claims that are clearly false,
>then the "Kuzari" claim must have a fatal flaw
As the Kuzari puts it, yes; but that doesn't mean that all `Kuzari-
style' arguments must also be false.
--
Zev Sero Programming: the art of debugging an empty text file
zs...@bigfoot.com
D S Levene
: D S Levene (D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Very convinced. Plato, "Laws" 663E-664A uses this Theban myth as an
: : example of how easy it is to convince the vast mass of people of ludicrous
: : things (Plato was not a Theban, of course!): unless Plato was introducing
: what was Plato's info - was he their contemprary?
Yes.
: btw, R Miller adds some interesting arguments in his "Rejoice O Youth":
: par.77:
: Sinai tradition is stronger than the tradition that
: George Washington existed! - after all most Americans are descendants of
: immigrants who came after him
If the only evidence for George Washington were tradition, and we could be
*sure* (by secular criteria) that the Sinai tradition existed in its
current form within 200 years, then I would perhaps agree. Since neither
of these factors obtains, I'm afraid that I don't find R' Miller's
argument terribly useful.
D S Levene
: <Once again, Prof. Levene has overwhelmed me with a prolific burst. I'll
: try to be brief.>
Apologies - I fully *intended* to be brief myself, but somehow it didn't
come out that way ...
: D S Levene wrote:
: <snip>
: > it altered. Even on the Kuzari's argument, a text that was *identical*
: > with the prophecy *could* obviously be introduced at a later point, by
: > which time people would know of their ancestral tradition of a revelation,
: > but not of the numbers of their ancestors who witnessed it.
: That Judaism is the only religion to make a claim of such a large number
: *and get away with it* is what impresses me with the Kuzari argument.
But this presupposes that there is something to "get away" with. I'm
suggesting that in reality people did not make a practical distinction
between national prophecy and individual prophecy, so it is no more
remarkable that Judaism "got away" with a national prophecy than that
Muhammed (say) "got away" with an individual one.
: > Speaking for myself, I know of no historical evidence against a
: > Revelation at Sinai. But I'm afraid that the idea of 3,000,000 people
: > spending 40 years in the desert, and yet leaving no archaeological trace
: > of their presence, frankly stretches my credulity. It is not for want of
: > trying to find it: there have been extensive excavations in the Sinai.
: > And to find evidence of that many people in a sparsely settled area should
: > not even require excavation: there would be surface features that would
: > attest to their presence. There appears to be nothing.
: Actually, (while archeology is hardly a hobby of mine) I did read about
: an inscription found in the Sinai desert that is dated to that era,
: which mentions the name Chovav, another name for Jethro, Moses'
: father-in-law, who spent some time in that region.
This is not relevant, since I am *only* addressing the question of
numbers. Even if we found an inscription with the name of Moses on it, it
would not solve the problem that the *numbers* cannot be supported - but
it was on the numbers that you were basing part of your argument. There
is no archaeological objection to a much smaller group of Israelites -
including Moses, Jethro and the rest - being in Sinai.
: Also, I thought the conquest of Canaan was well supported (William
: Albright's name sticks out in my mind, plus the destroyed cities of Dan,
: Hazor & Bethel).
: (I have a book on this that I'll have to bring with me to work.)
Albright is *very* out of date, and most archaeologists now deny that the
evidence can support a large-scale conquest of Canaan. Dan was not
destroyed at all (though it *may* show evidence of peaceful resettlement
at the relevant time). Hazor and Bethel are the *only* cities that show
clear evidence of major destruction during the period: other claimed
contemporary destructions were the result of attempts to force the data to
fit the Biblical account, and are generally agreed not to stand up to
close examination. Finkelstein's book (which I mentioned in my previous
post) is worth looking at, as is W.G. Dever's article in E.S. Frerichs &
L.H. Lesko (eds.) "Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence" (Indiana, 1997).
But in any event, this once again really seems to miss the point.
Even if there *was* a conquest, it did not (on the evidence) involve such
large *numbers*, which was the only point my post was addressing.
: > (1992)). While there is still plenty of archaeology left to do in Israel,
: > it is far and away the most intensively excavated country in the world.
: > The chances that we will now discover a set of population centres and
: > infrastructure extensive enough to have supported a population sixty times
: > as large as anything previously known, is approximately zero.
: Hey you never know. With all due respect, is your expertise in
: archeology, as well? (Although, my layman's understanding is that
: archeology is not an exact science. As such, I wouldn't say it could
: prove or disprove the Torah's claim about desert settlement.)
No need to say "with all due respect" - you are perfectly entitled to
question what I say! I am not an archaeologist, but in my work I often
make use of the results of archaeology, so I try to keep abreast of
archaeological methods and of what archaeologists are saying: based on
that, I believe that my statement fairly represents the mainstream view in
the discipline. I would probably disagree with you about the ability of
archaeology to prove or disprove this aspect of the Torah; but the more
important point is that, for better or worse, archaeology overwhelmingly
provides the primary secular data on the period. If one is not assuming
the divinity of the Torah, but is trying to prove it, one cannot base
one's argument on figures that are not compatible with the available
secular evidence.
: > referred to in my other post (though those are clearly relevant), but also
: > that in practice it is not *needed* to provide validity: plenty of
: > religions do perfectly well in attracting adherents without it. In
: > discussions of the validity of religion in the ancient world, one never
: > (as far as I can recall) finds anyone on any side of the argument
: > suggesting that there is a significant distinction between national and
: > non-national prophecies. In fact, the only time one *ever* finds people
: > distinguishing national from non-national prophecies in terms of validity
: > is in the context of Jewish apologetic works like the Kuzari, who have,
: I agree with you wholeheartedly about the *need* for such arguments. I
: wouldn't stake my faith on any of these empirical "proofs" (in fact, I
: didn't).
I am sure not, and would not have expected you to have done so. But I'm
not *quite* certain that you've seen the point of what I am saying, which
was not about the role of arguments like this in bolstering the faith of
an individual. Rather I am suggesting that this distinction just isn't
the sort of thing that people think about at all *except* in the context
of Jewish apologetics. And since they don't think about it at all, one is
not entitled to attribute the failure of some religions to "come up with"
a national prophecy to any difficulty in coming up with such a prophecy.
[deletions]
: Good point. (If you will excuse some more of my ethno-/religiocentrism)
: the post of mine you originally responded to posited that Judaism is the
: only religion that is also a nation (in that one who joins the religion
: joins the nation, and one born into the nation, who doesn't subscribe to
: the religion, is still a member of the nation). Do you disagree?
For the modern world, I have no idea, I'm afraid. For the ancient world,
I would disagree. Religion in the ancient world was very closely tied to
- indeed often more or less indistinguishable from - national identity,
such that someone who became a citizen of a state would be expected ipso
facto to participate in the cults of that state (with only odd
exceptions), and someone who ceased to subscribe to the religion of a
state was still held to be bound by it. L. Bruit Zaidman & P. Schmitt
Pantel, "Religion in the Ancient Greek City" (Cambridge, 1992), gives a
good sense of the civic nature of ancient religion.
I'm terribly sorry, but this seems to have ended up as *another* long
post. I think I must be suffering from some illness - does "logorrhoea
academica" sound a plausible diagnosis to the medics here?
D S Levene
: <I'm going to attempt to answer 3 replies in this one>
That saves me some work too - thank you!
: In all of your counter-examples, you cite ancient myths which you would
: like us to believe were widely accepted (Locians, Crisans and Thebans)
: and (I assume) for a respectable number of years. I, at least, am at a
: great disadvantage in that I've not personally investigated these
: ancient cults (and probably will not get around to doing so any time
: soon), so I have to pick your brain (and bookshelves) for details and
: evidence. The questions I've asked about the Crisans apply to the
: Locians, as well (the Thebes story, as you've amended, is not a myth
: about mass-prophecy, so is no longer jermane).
The way that these things are cited and referred to suggests that they
were indeed widely accepted - but precisely how widely, and for how long,
is hard to determine with any precision, since our evidence, as you will
have realised, is fairly scanty - just a few citations in each case. If
you are saying that it is theoretically possible that *none* of them were
believed in all that widely, I can only say that it is *theoretically*
possible, but seems to me highly unlikely, since, apart from the specific
citations that point in that direction, we have good evidence that
national myths in general were accepted by the broad populations of their
cities, and moreover, as I have said in my other post, no ancient, even
when discussing questions of the believability of myth, ever seems to
distinguish national prophecy from other sorts of prophecy. The available
evidence thus seems to me strongly to indicate plenty of reasonable
counterexamples to the Kuzari, even if they do not provide the detailed
precision that you and Simcha are asking for.
: But even without information required to adequately judge whether these
: local beliefs truly deserve juxtaposition with Judaism's core miraculous
: claim (e.g., how strong is the physical evidence that the masses in
: these localities ever really took them seriously and for how long?), the
: fact that none of them survived the ancient world IS relevant. My
: version of the Kuzari-type argument (as I've never cited the Kuzari,
: rather my argument was attributed to it)
Sorry - that was my fault. I read your argument, and - perhaps wrongly -
saw it as essentially the same as the Kuzari's, and so started referring
to it as such.
: is that Judaism is the only
: religion *to be successful* with such an argument. That others have
: tried it and failed after a while comes as no threat to the argument,
: but it does challenge the claim that all religions follow the same
: formula (that of one "witness" or a small cabal of such), save one.
This is indeed a different argument from the Kuzari's. But for it to
work, you have to have grounds for postulating a correlation between (a)
the success or failure of a belief in national prophecy to survive and (b)
the original truth of the prophecy. Frankly, I cannot imagine what such
grounds would be. Why should the *later* lack of survival be the result
of the *original* falsity of the claim, since people at the later time by
definition would be unable to distinguish a true original claim from a
false one?
Of course, the grounds could be "God would support them only if their
claim was a true one". But the moment you say that, you have abandoned
any idea that one could deduce the truth of the prophecy on purely secular
grounds, unless you have excluded *all* other possibilities for why
religions survive or fall.
: OTOH, the Torah seems to anticipate such claims:
: "See if anything as great as this [mass prophecy at Mt. Sinai] has ever
: happened, or if the like has ever been heard. Has any nation ever heard
: God speaking out of fire, as you [Israelites] have, and still survived?"
: (Deut. 4:32)
: As the ancient Greeks are known to have been in contact with the ancient
: Hebrews, it could be that they borrowed certain themes and narratives
: from them.
These Greek cities had such beliefs at least as far back as the early 6th
century BCE, which is earlier than any attested contact between them and
the ancient Hebrews.
: Whether they were able to maintain public credence in a
: theme as incredible as mass prophecy beyond a short time seems crucial
: to establishing the strength of my argument.
But once again, in *practice* mass prophecy is no more incredible than any
other sort of prophecy. Only if one has already loaded the argument in
favour of Judaism does one seem to conclude that there is a distinction.
: That Jews have taken this
: claim out of the ancient world and through modernity, while using it to
: remold much of the world from a pagan one into a monothestic one, should
: spark questions as to why they succeeded where others failed. Perhaps,
: (and I say this only in speculation, as I don't believe religious faith
: should hinge on empirical "proofs") it is that these other cults were
: using a false claim, whereas the Jews were not.
As to whether it is the truth or falsity of the claim that governs
survival, we cannot use survival (as I think you are trying to) as
*evidence* for the truth of the claim in secular terms unless we have
excluded *all* other possibilities. Until then, I am afraid that your
speculation is not likely to carry much conviction save among those who
are already convinced of its conclusion.
D S Levene
: > D S Levene wrote:
: [snip]
: > > Speaking for myself, I know of no historical evidence against a
: > > Revelation at Sinai. But I'm afraid that the idea of 3,000,000 people
: > > spending 40 years in the desert, and yet leaving no archaeological trace
: > > of their presence, frankly stretches my credulity. It is not for want of
: > > trying to find it: there have been extensive excavations in the Sinai.
: > > And to find evidence of that many people in a sparsely settled area should
: > > not even require excavation: there would be surface features that would
: > > attest to their presence. There appears to be nothing.
: >
: > Actually, (while archeology is hardly a hobby of mine) I did read about
: > an inscription found in the Sinai desert that is dated to that era,
: > which mentions the name Chovav, another name for Jethro, Moses'
: > father-in-law, who spent some time in that region.
: >
: > Also, I thought the conquest of Canaan was well supported (William
: > Albright's name sticks out in my mind, plus the destroyed cities of Dan,
: > Hazor & Bethel).
: > (I have a book on this that I'll have to bring with me to work.)
: Another little bit of info on the issue can be found at:
: http://members.tripod.com/~lifsha/judaism/exodus.html
: It doesn't deal with the large numbers, though.
I've had a look at this site, and it is, shall we say, rather far from
mainstream scholarly positions. It depends upon a radical redating
of *all* Near-Eastern history a la Velikovsky which is pretty well
universally rejected by every mainstream academic in every related field.
If people want to see *why* such redatings are rejected, I recommend the
multidisciplinary review article in "Cambridge Archaeological Journal" 1
(1991), 227-53; also more recently a supplement of "Acta Archaeologica",
under the title "Absolute Chronology" (Copenhagen, 1996).
: OTOH, why would the author of
: the Torah, whoever he was, make such a careful record of several censuses of
: bnei Yisrael?
I have heard it suggested that the numbers have symbolic significance -
but I do not know enough about numerology to be able to assess the
plausibility of this claim.
Rafael
I think these assertions summarize your challenges to my argument:
(1) Truth does not necessarily determine survival.
(2) The religious claim of national prophecy (i.e., miracles witnessed
by entire populations) was common in the ancient world.
(3) Archeology currently does not support the Hebrew Bible's claims.
Starting from the bottom (please keep in mind that I am only going on
what you've told me, not on personal research):
(3) You would know this far better than I. I think this
counter-argument was a tangential one, but relevant, nonetheless. I
don't know that they would necessarily find any utensils or writings
(our tradition holds that the tribe of Dan picked up all of the camp's
remains as they traveled through the wilderness), but if there is
conflicting data, or lack of any evidence... In any case, I can accept
your introducing this point as an example of how conclusions based on
currect data in one secular discipline does not support my argument.
(2) This directly addresses my argument. It doesn't matter much that I
am still sceptical about the two relevant claims' admissability (Crisans
and Locians), as I should really study the methodologies and data myself
before coming to such a conclusion (unlikely, though). But (in spite of
the scanty data) taking what you've said at face value still leads me to
question (1):
(1) Is it not so that all *surviving* religions today are based on the
miraculous claims of one or a small group of people, save Judaism?
(There is that Hindu example I mentioned, but it should be obvious why
it doesn't deserve comparison.) Assuming you agree (you may have a
counter-example to this as well), the fact that *at any time* an ancient
city would believe that it's ancestors all simultaneously witnessed a
revelation says that it is possible to induce credulity in a such a
claim (beyond the Jewish claim, of course). Seeing as how these ancient
cults did not survive the ancient world and the Jewish one did (given
their claims' similarities), it is significant that no surviving
religions make such a claim.
You have stated that it is no more remarkable that this claim has
survived than Islam's claim has. The difficulty I have with that is
that Islam asks that one take the word of one person (or a person
writing on behalf of that person), which (AFAIK) fits the formula of all
other religions today. Judaism asks that one take the word of 3,000,000
people, which in the ancient world might not have been very significant
(as far as you've told us), but in the modern one is very significant.
The correlation between unique survival of an ancient claim and unique
existence of the claim in the modern world adds up to a unique claim
(unless we can find another such case, of course). Does it mean that
the claim must deductively be true? I don't think I've claimed that.
Does it stand out as a stronger religious claim than other existing
claims? If unique equals strong, then yes, I have claimed that.
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: If the only evidence for George Washington were tradition, and we could be
: *sure* (by secular criteria) that the Sinai tradition existed in its
: current form within 200 years, then I would perhaps agree. Since neither
: of these factors obtains, I'm afraid that I don't find R' Miller's
: argument terribly useful.
I agree his argument is hard to quantify, but I understand his point that
our "distance" from the souce is in (tradition strngth) x (time) space
in this case, if Jews were always dedicated to Judaism the way we know
about generation it is documented, then this is a serious thing.
and after all, here I am, coming to US from nowhere -
what do I know about Washington and his works -
papers written by someone, archives - are these his?
portraits, who knows - maybe he lived 50 years earlier -
how many people are really paying attention
--
Simcha Streltsov
: >false. If other people have believed similar claims that are clearly false,
: >then the "Kuzari" claim must have a fatal flaw
: As the Kuzari puts it, yes; but that doesn't mean that all `Kuzari-
: style' arguments must also be false.
but if you have to be careful - importance of Kuzari for us is that
it was proposed (seemingly) without having access to many of the
traditions that we unearthed - thus it can be tested independently -
if you start massaging his hypothesis, you are fitting your hypothesis
to the data you have, and your proof will be more difficult -
to put it simple, the difference between Kuzari's argument and Zev Sero's
argument is the same as predicting tomorrow's game score and yesterday's
Simcha Streltsov
: have realised, is fairly scanty - just a few citations in each case. If
: you are saying that it is theoretically possible that *none* of them were
: believed in all that widely, I can only say that it is *theoretically*
: possible, but seems to me highly unlikely, since, apart from the specific
: citations that point in that direction, we have good evidence that
: national myths in general were accepted by the broad populations of their
: cities, and moreover, as I have said in my other post, no ancient, even
: when discussing questions of the believability of myth, ever seems to
: distinguish national prophecy from other sorts of prophecy. The available
stop right here - this is circular (tm) reasoning - we are trying to see
whether there were peoples that believed in the traditions based on mass
revelations, and your proof:
1. there are stories of mass revelations
2. everyone believes in their traditions, therefore they would believe
in these too.
if you are not sure that this inference ia not valid, think that
obviously, Kuzari did not think much of it - he could probably find
a "story" of mass revelations, nd was aware of people believing in those
traditions, but did not made the inference you make
Jonathan J. Baker
>Simcha Streltsov (sim...@bu.edu) wrote:
>
>: btw, R Miller adds some interesting arguments in his "Rejoice O Youth":
>: par.77:
>: Sinai tradition is stronger than the tradition that
>: George Washington existed! - after all most Americans are descendants of
>: immigrants who came after him
>If the only evidence for George Washington were tradition, and we could be
>*sure* (by secular criteria) that the Sinai tradition existed in its
>current form within 200 years, then I would perhaps agree. Since neither
>of these factors obtains, I'm afraid that I don't find R' Miller's
>argument terribly useful.
I dont' find much of anything R' Avigdor Miller says to be terribly
useful. That book which SImcha mentions is largely an argument for
creationism. It starts out by saying "to convince you of this we
need a level playing field. Therefore, let's assume that all scientists
are partisan liars." A priori discrediting the opposition is not
(to me) a convincing way of proving one's point.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Zev Sero
>: Another little bit of info on the issue can be found at:
>: http://members.tripod.com/~lifsha/judaism/exodus.html
And David Levene responded. I forwarded his response to the owner of
that page, and here's her response. Just to keep things clear,
lines marked >: are Yisrael's, lines marked > Are David's, and lines
not marked at all are Lisa's. None of the lines are mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>On 24 Jul 1998 D S Levene <D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
<sigh> David Levene is so sure he knows everything. He's constantly on
this holy war to defend the reigning paradigm. The fact that serious
archaeologists (Rudolf Cohen and Emmanuel Anati, to name two) have
suggested things other than what that paradigm say just doesn't faze
him. To him, you have to have the majority, or a huge minority of
mainstream scholarship agreeing on something before you can take it
seriously. We'd still be in the stone age if everyone thought that way.
>: Another little bit of info on the issue can be found at:
>: http://members.tripod.com/~lifsha/judaism/exodus.html
>
>: It doesn't deal with the large numbers, though.
Well, even though it doesn't mention them, the large numbers *were*
found
in the Sinai during the Intermediate Bronze Age.
>I've had a look at this site, and it is, shall we say, rather far from
>mainstream scholarly positions. It depends upon a radical redating
>of *all* Near-Eastern history a la Velikovsky which is pretty well
>universally rejected by every mainstream academic in every related field.
Paradigm-defense. And besides, it's not true. The article doesn't
"depend" on that radical redating, but rather *supports* the radical
redating.
>If people want to see *why* such redatings are rejected, I recommend the
>multidisciplinary review article in "Cambridge Archaeological Journal" 1
>(1991), 227-53; also more recently a supplement of "Acta Archaeologica",
>under the title "Absolute Chronology" (Copenhagen, 1996).
You mean someone wrote an article defending the paradigm, so it must be
true? Gee... Although I'll have to take a look at the thing. My guess
is that it's based on astronomy. Carbon dating doesn't support the
conventional chronology without introducing major fudge factors, and I
can't think what else they might be using.
I'm glad I don't have the time to be on SCJ right now. But if you like,
you can repost this. <smile>
Take care,
Lisa
Rafael
>
> Yisrael Markov wrote:
>
> >: Another little bit of info on the issue can be found at:
> >: http://members.tripod.com/~lifsha/judaism/exodus.html
>
> And David Levene responded. I forwarded his response to the owner of
> that page, and here's her response. Just to keep things clear,
> lines marked >: are Yisrael's, lines marked > Are David's, and lines
> not marked at all are Lisa's. None of the lines are mine.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >On 24 Jul 1998 D S Levene <D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> <sigh> David Levene is so sure he knows everything. He's constantly on
> this holy war to defend the reigning paradigm. The fact that serious
> archaeologists (Rudolf Cohen and Emmanuel Anati, to name two) have
> suggested things other than what that paradigm say just doesn't faze
> him. To him, you have to have the majority, or a huge minority of
> mainstream scholarship agreeing on something before you can take it
> seriously. We'd still be in the stone age if everyone thought that way.
In all fairness, I checked out Lisa's site and learned that she (like
me) is an O Jew, which means that her paradigm most likely comes not
from archeological discoveries but from the Torah.
OTOH, I think it is safe to say, based on some of Prof. Levene's
assertive statements about historical truth, that he subscribes to a
different form of orthodoxy (but I value his contributions here,
nonetheless).
Rafael
D S Levene
: D S Levene (D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk) wrote:
: : have realised, is fairly scanty - just a few citations in each case. If
: : you are saying that it is theoretically possible that *none* of them were
: : believed in all that widely, I can only say that it is *theoretically*
: : possible, but seems to me highly unlikely, since, apart from the specific
: : citations that point in that direction, we have good evidence that
: : national myths in general were accepted by the broad populations of their
: : cities, and moreover, as I have said in my other post, no ancient, even
: : when discussing questions of the believability of myth, ever seems to
: : distinguish national prophecy from other sorts of prophecy. The available
: stop right here - this is circular (tm) reasoning - we are trying to see
: whether there were peoples that believed in the traditions based on mass
: revelations, and your proof:
: 1. there are stories of mass revelations
: 2. everyone believes in their traditions, therefore they would believe
: in these too.
It would be circular, if it were not for the fact that you have missed out
premise 3
ancients discussing believability of traditions, who had far more
knowledge of different societies than we do, did not distinguish
mass revelations from individual ones;
and premise 4
the most natural understanding of our admittedly limited evidence on
the specific cases is that people did believe in such things.
both of which I sought to express in my paragraph above.
: if you are not sure that this inference ia not valid, think that
: obviously, Kuzari did not think much of it - he could probably find
: a "story" of mass revelations, nd was aware of people believing in those
: traditions, but did not made the inference you make
If we are talking about the Kuzari, and not Rafael's "Kuzari-style"
argument, I can recall no evidence that he had found any stories of mass
revelations at all - but it is a while since I read it, and I don't have
a copy to hand, so I welcome corrections.
I should perhaps repeat that, as I sought to make clear from my
very first post, even if there *were* no counterexamples, the Kuzari's
argument is flawed in principle, since it depends upon a set of false
assumptions. This is a point that no one, as far as I can see, has
challenged in this discussion; but it does, I'm afraid, mean that I
cannot regard the Kuzari's attitude to potential counterexamples (even if
the author was aware of them) as a significant factor in assessing their
validity.
D S Levene
: I think these assertions summarize your challenges to my argument:
: (1) Truth does not necessarily determine survival.
This is indeed one point at the heart of my argument; but there are
several other important things that I have stressed. In particular (1a)
that there is no distinction between national prophecy and individual
prophecy in this respect; and (1b) that national prophecy is no less
capable of being falsified than is individual prophecy.
: (2) The religious claim of national prophecy (i.e., miracles witnessed
: by entire populations) was common in the ancient world.
: (3) Archeology currently does not support the Hebrew Bible's claims.
Actually, my claim was not nearly as strong as this makes it sound. I did
not suggest that archaeology could disprove *any* sort of mass revelation
as described in the Torah; only that the specific *figures* used in the
Torah can be challenged on the basis of archaeology. It would of course
be perfectly possible for you to rephrase your argument to retain the mass
revelation, but without the vast numbers mentioned in the Torah; and to
such an argument archaeology offers no opposition.
However, I did then go on to follow this with a further argument
(let's call it 3(a)), that one was not entitled to *assume* from a story
of a mass revelation that was supported by family tradition, that even if
the family tradition was intact that it went back to a revelation that was
so large as to be unfalsifiable. This, however, was a challenge to the
logic of the argument, and was not based on the archaeology, except in so
far as the archaeology provides a reason for questioning the figures in
the first place.
: Starting from the bottom (please keep in mind that I am only going on
: what you've told me, not on personal research):
: (3) You would know this far better than I. I think this
: counter-argument was a tangential one, but relevant, nonetheless. I
: don't know that they would necessarily find any utensils or writings
: (our tradition holds that the tribe of Dan picked up all of the camp's
: remains as they traveled through the wilderness), but if there is
: conflicting data, or lack of any evidence... In any case, I can accept
: your introducing this point as an example of how conclusions based on
: currect data in one secular discipline does not support my argument.
You're right that it's tangential, for the reason I set out above.
: (2) This directly addresses my argument. It doesn't matter much that I
: am still sceptical about the two relevant claims' admissability (Crisans
: and Locians), as I should really study the methodologies and data myself
: before coming to such a conclusion (unlikely, though). But (in spite of
: the scanty data) taking what you've said at face value still leads me to
: question (1):
You are perfectly entitled to be sceptical, especially since I have said
that the data is scanty. However, I do think that the conclusions are
sound - I can provide other examples also (over the weekend I remembered
one from Rome, where our evidence is of course much fuller), but I don't
think that the discussion will be furthered by taking this particular
point forward.
: (1) Is it not so that all *surviving* religions today are based on the
: miraculous claims of one or a small group of people, save Judaism?
: (There is that Hindu example I mentioned, but it should be obvious why
: it doesn't deserve comparison.) Assuming you agree (you may have a
: counter-example to this as well),
I know little about modern non-Western religions, and certainly have no
counter-examples. Unless someone else comes up with one, I am happy
to continue the discussion on this basis.
: the fact that *at any time* an ancient
: city would believe that it's ancestors all simultaneously witnessed a
: revelation says that it is possible to induce credulity in a such a
: claim (beyond the Jewish claim, of course). Seeing as how these ancient
: cults did not survive the ancient world and the Jewish one did (given
: their claims' similarities), it is significant that no surviving
: religions make such a claim.
: You have stated that it is no more remarkable that this claim has
: survived than Islam's claim has. The difficulty I have with that is
: that Islam asks that one take the word of one person (or a person
: writing on behalf of that person), which (AFAIK) fits the formula of all
: other religions today. Judaism asks that one take the word of 3,000,000
: people, which in the ancient world might not have been very significant
: (as far as you've told us), but in the modern one is very significant.
This is the point at which your argument does (I think) intersect with the
Kuzari's, and the point from which I began my original post on this
subject.
If we literally had 3,000,000 (or any other large number) individual
attestations to a revelation, that would obviously be quite spectacularly
significant, and something that would (to put it mildly) far outweigh
anything that Islam (or anyone else) has to offer. And that would be true
not only by modern standards of evidence, but by ancient ones also - the
ancients were of course no less aware than we are that something that has
multiple independent sources is more likely to be true than something that
depends upon a single source.
But we don't have 3,000,000 individual attestations. What we have is
a *single* attestation - the Torah - combined with an argument about
family traditions (the Kuzari's, but it is also the argument that you
yourself put forward in the original post to which I responded) which
tries to conclude that a single attestation of a multiple revelation is
ipso facto significantly better supported than is the single attestation
of a non-multiple revelation. But this argument, as I set out in my
original response (1b and 3a above), depends on a series of false
assumptions, and hence the conclusion does not follow. In which case the
attestation for Judaism is exactly the same as the attestation for Islam:
one potentially falsifiable document.
Which is why (I suspect) the notion of multiple revelation did not
carry any special weight in the ancient world; and which is why (in my
view) we would be unwise to give it any weight in modern terms either.
And in practice I'm not sure that even now people *do* give it special
weight - in any context except Kuzari-like arguments for Judaism. In
other contexts my experience is that people who are committed to neither
regard the claims of the Torah and those of the NT or the Koran as being
on precisely the same level: one document (more or less) in each case.
: The correlation between unique survival of an ancient claim and unique
: existence of the claim in the modern world adds up to a unique claim
: (unless we can find another such case, of course). Does it mean that
: the claim must deductively be true? I don't think I've claimed that.
: Does it stand out as a stronger religious claim than other existing
: claims? If unique equals strong, then yes, I have claimed that.
Well, I presume that you don't *really* think that unique equals strong!
Even from my limited knowledge, I can think of some modern religions
which certainly make unique claims, but where the uniqueness relates to
things that seem to make them uniquely weak - I'm sure that you can also.
So mere uniqueness cannot be the point - you must think that there
is some quality about *this* uniqueness that provides Judaism with extra
support. But in that case, what is it? I cannot imagine what it would
be. It is not that multiple prophecy *per se* is more likely to be true -
that is the Kuzari's argument, but I think that the objections I have
raised to that from the start still make such a conclusion unsustainable.
So it must be something to do with survival. But how can the *later*
survival attest to the *original* truth of the claim, since the people on
whom survival or failure to survive depends cannot by definition
distinguish a true claim from a false one? And, even if it did, since
in principle both individual and national prophecies may be either true
or false (cf. 1b above), why should the survival of a national prophecy
attest to the truth of something more than the survival of an individual
one would (1a)? I simply don't see what grounds you have for such a
rafael
> But we don't have 3,000,000 individual attestations. What we have is
> a *single* attestation - the Torah - combined with an argument about
> family traditions (the Kuzari's, but it is also the argument that you
> yourself put forward in the original post to which I responded) which
> tries to conclude that a single attestation of a multiple revelation is
> ipso facto significantly better supported than is the single attestation
> of a non-multiple revelation. But this argument, as I set out in my
> original response (1b and 3a above), depends on a series of false
> assumptions, and hence the conclusion does not follow. In which case the
> attestation for Judaism is exactly the same as the attestation for Islam:
> one potentially falsifiable document.
From what I recall of your post listing the "false assumptions," you
suggested that one judge the Torah tradition based on the trends of
other ancient religions. This is a valid criticism, even if it lacks
evidence relating specifically to the religion under discussion. Again,
it also asks that I place my faith in the accuracy of scholarships
relating to these other ancient religions. Nonetheless, it is good
enough to raise doubt in my "Kuzari-style" argument. I still see a
difference, however...
> Which is why (I suspect) the notion of multiple revelation did not
> carry any special weight in the ancient world; and which is why (in my
> view) we would be unwise to give it any weight in modern terms either.
> And in practice I'm not sure that even now people *do* give it special
> weight - in any context except Kuzari-like arguments for Judaism. In
> other contexts my experience is that people who are committed to neither
> regard the claims of the Torah and those of the NT or the Koran as being
> on precisely the same level: one document (more or less) in each case.
Assuming that mass revelation did not carry any special weight in the
ancient world, I still am left with the question as to why those cults
died out and Judaism's did not. For that reason alone, the latter is in
a special class.
> Well, I presume that you don't *really* think that unique equals strong!
> Even from my limited knowledge, I can think of some modern religions
> which certainly make unique claims, but where the uniqueness relates to
> things that seem to make them uniquely weak - I'm sure that you can also.
I may have worded that poorly. The claim is strong because it
out-lasted other similar claims. Why it did so, I don't know (I have
only beliefs as to why). Feel free to offer some theories, but they will
be just that--theories.
The other question that deserves attention is why post-antiquity
religions (say, after 1 BCE) were not able to make such a claim. Here,
the secular theories might be more plausible, yet based on the same
counter-assumptions you listed earlier. IOW, that beyond a certain era:
(1) nations knew more about their own history; (2) more texts and more
public access to those texts existed; (3) and different oral traditions
of a similar nature already existed.
Was this indeed the case 2,000 years ago? Was communication so much
better than a few centuries earlier, that made these traditions of
national (or at least civic) prophecy impossible to maintain anymore?
Afterall, they had either died or were in the process of dying by then
(assuming the peoples in your examples ever really did take those myths
seriously).
You would know these answers better than I would, and even your answers
I would take with a healthy grain of salt. What I have that is palpable
is a religious claim that millions of people still believe today,
millenia after other such claims fizzled out (according to your info).
World religions (such as Xianity and Islam) did not see their claims as
strong enough on their own. They had to "borrow" mass prophecy at Sinai
to bolster them. They see the claim as strong.
You may synthesize a very good and mundane explanation for all of this,
but seeing is at least a strong step towards believing. Of course, I
believe the claim is true for a more complex set of reasons than I have
presented here, so that is perhaps why you don't follow me. If you are
not particularly more impressed by the basic history of our religion
than you are by that of other religions/cultures, then we might just
wind up repeating ourselves to one another over and over.
Rafael
Harvey S. Cohen
>[sd]
>Assuming that mass revelation did not carry any special weight in the
>ancient world, I still am left with the question as to why those cults
>died out and Judaism's did not. For that reason alone, the latter is in
>a special class.
Silly argument.
When asked what Nature had taught him about the Creator and His Creation, the
British biologist J.B.S. Haldane said, "God has an inordinate fondness for
beetles." Of the some 1.5 million species of all the Earth's flora and fauna so
far identified by scientists, about 370,000 are beetles.
>You may synthesize a very good and mundane explanation for all of this,
>but seeing is at least a strong step towards believing. Of course, I
>believe the claim is true for a more complex set of reasons than I have
>presented here, so that is perhaps why you don't follow me. If you are
>not particularly more impressed by the basic history of our religion
>than you are by that of other religions/cultures, then we might just
>wind up repeating ourselves to one another over and over.
Rafael tarts up his inability to match either wits or scholarship as "a more
complex set of reasons." Then he misrepresents David's failure to be impressed
by Rafael's own weak thinking as a failure to be impressed by Jewish tradition.
What cheek!
--
harve...@home.foo.com (Harvey S. Cohen)
(Remove foo to reply)
Simcha Streltsov
: useful. That book which SImcha mentions is largely an argument for
: creationism. It starts out by saying "to convince you of this we
: need a level playing field. Therefore, let's assume that all scientists
: are partisan liars." A priori discrediting the opposition is not
: (to me) a convincing way of proving one's point.
I dont think he assumes that al scientists are liars,
as I probably know more scientists than Rabbis, I'd probably
notice if he'd say sometihng like that.
for example, paraphrasing item (33):
false beliefs go around as a contiguous disease, sa for exmaple millions
of people, incl. most educated repeated old false opinions of
Greeks about Jews (Posidon, Apion)... among supporters of evolution,
there are very limiited peple who reject facts that are right under
their nose. he puts enough qualifiers, but in most cases, he attacks
positions and not people - you may or not disagree with them, of course
Rafael
> Silly argument.
> When asked what Nature had taught him about the Creator and His Creation, the
> British biologist J.B.S. Haldane said, "God has an inordinate fondness for
> beetles." Of the some 1.5 million species of all the Earth's flora and fauna so
> far identified by scientists, about 370,000 are beetles.
I fail to see the connection between religious ideology and biology.
> Rafael tarts up his inability to match either wits or scholarship as "a more
> complex set of reasons." Then he misrepresents David's failure to be impressed
> by Rafael's own weak thinking as a failure to be impressed by Jewish tradition.
> What cheek!
Here you fall back into your usual practice of personal attack in lieu
of actual thinking. By painting one side of a polite discussion in such
personally damaging terms, you render your criticisms ignorably
unenlightening, which is a shame, as I like to think you are capable of
better.
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: very first post, even if there *were* no counterexamples, the Kuzari's
: argument is flawed in principle, since it depends upon a set of false
: assumptions. This is a point that no one, as far as I can see, has
: challenged in this discussion; but it does, I'm afraid, mean that I
: cannot regard the Kuzari's attitude to potential counterexamples (even if
: the author was aware of them) as a significant factor in assessing their
: validity.
A theory does not have to be based on 100% provable argument to be
correct. a theory is good enough for all pracitcal purposes if it
is a good predictor.
Kuzari is a very interesting example:
when he posed it, it was on some shaky ground - exactly due to some
of your considerations:; given limited number of observations,
anyone can find a complex enough "theory " that will explain why one
nation is differnt from all others.
but now, we have more data than he did, so we can in effect check
how good his theory predicted new data - so. _if_ there are no
such examples, his theory becomes worthy of attention -
the only caution we should take is not to substitute our own
theory for Kuzari's - then all the predictive ability should
be discounted
Rafael
> but now, we have more data than he did, so we can in effect check
> how good his theory predicted new data - so. _if_ there are no
> such examples, his theory becomes worthy of attention -
> the only caution we should take is not to substitute our own
> theory for Kuzari's - then all the predictive ability should
> be discounted
If you want to conduct a study on Kuzari, by all means, be my guest.
My theory was attributed to the Kuzari, as it has some points of
intersection. But the Kuzari does not claim to be a prophetic book, so
why should one care about it's predictive ability?
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: My theory was attributed to the Kuzari, as it has some points of
: intersection. But the Kuzari does not claim to be a prophetic book, so
: why should one care about it's predictive ability?
we are still talking about Kuzari argument, right?
it was based on the data of that time.
now, we have more data - about more national histories and can
check whether the hypothesis works there.
a theory does not have to be _prophetic_ in order to be _predictive_.
in fact, AFAIU, it is the advantage of talmidei hahamim vs prophets -
the latter need divine intervention to explain each situation, the
scholars can develop general rules
Rafael
> a theory does not have to be _prophetic_ in order to be _predictive_.
> in fact, AFAIU, it is the advantage of talmidei hahamim vs prophets -
> the latter need divine intervention to explain each situation, the
> scholars can develop general rules
What Prof. Levene most objected to was the insinuation that the unique
history of our claim of national prophecy must mean, deductively, that
it is true. While I believe that truth is a better explanation than
others (even though that it requires acceptance of the possibility of
prophecy), I admit that one cannot claim that it is the only possible
explanation.
Do you not agree? If so, then why test an argument that is known to rest
on flawed assumptions? We already know that the claim is historically
special (unless someone can come up with another modern religion that
maintains such a claim).
Rafael
D S Levene
: And David Levene responded. I forwarded his response to the owner of
: that page, and here's her response. Just to keep things clear,
: lines marked >: are Yisrael's, lines marked > Are David's, and lines
: not marked at all are Lisa's. None of the lines are mine.
: --------------------------------------------------------------------
: >On 24 Jul 1998 D S Levene <D.S.L...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
: <sigh> David Levene is so sure he knows everything. He's constantly on
: this holy war to defend the reigning paradigm. The fact that serious
: archaeologists (Rudolf Cohen and Emmanuel Anati, to name two) have
: suggested things other than what that paradigm say just doesn't faze
: him. To him, you have to have the majority, or a huge minority of
: mainstream scholarship agreeing on something before you can take it
: seriously. We'd still be in the stone age if everyone thought that way.
I simply said that the article was "rather far from mainstream scholarly
positions". It is, and I frankly doubt that Lisa would disagree (what
else does she mean when she talks about a "reigning paradigm", after
all?). Please note that, as Lisa herself acknowledges in the course of
the article, neither Anati nor Cohen draw the conclusions from the data
that she does: their own conclusions fit the "reigning paradigm", as she
calls it. Hence there is little reason for anyone to be "fazed" by them.
: >I've had a look at this site, and it is, shall we say, rather far from
: >mainstream scholarly positions. It depends upon a radical redating
: >of *all* Near-Eastern history a la Velikovsky which is pretty well
: >universally rejected by every mainstream academic in every related field.
: Paradigm-defense. And besides, it's not true. The article doesn't
: "depend" on that radical redating, but rather *supports* the radical
: redating.
Fair enough: I apologise for misrepresenting Lisa's argument in this way.
: >If people want to see *why* such redatings are rejected, I recommend the
: >multidisciplinary review article in "Cambridge Archaeological Journal" 1
: >(1991), 227-53; also more recently a supplement of "Acta Archaeologica",
: >under the title "Absolute Chronology" (Copenhagen, 1996).
: You mean someone wrote an article defending the paradigm, so it must be
: true? Gee...
No: I simply suggested two places that people might go to look for the
extensive counterevidence to the conclusions that Lisa draws, and which
she does not mention in her article. Whether or not people are convinced
when they read it is up to them.
: Although I'll have to take a look at the thing. My guess
: is that it's based on astronomy. Carbon dating doesn't support the
: conventional chronology without introducing major fudge factors, and I
: can't think what else they might be using.
Lisa guesses wrong. Both the article (as I said) and the journal
supplement are multidisciplinary, written by scholars in the historical
chronology of the different cultures, radiocarbon specialists and
dendrochronologists. Astronomy is hardly mentioned, as far as I
recall.
Lisa's comment about carbon dating is also rather out of date.
Radiocarbon dating has made vast advances in the last ten years, and now
provides independent dating that (among other things) make Velikovskian
redatings of this sort unsustainable. This point is made in both of the
places I recommended above; but the key article to look at on radiocarbon
in particular is S. Manning & B. Weninger, "Archaeological wiggle matching
and chronology in the Aegean Late Bronze Age", "Antiquity" 66 (1992),
636-63, which sets out both the methodology and the data very
comprehensively.
D S Levene
while there are some similarities, there are also, as Rafael has made
clear, some differences. Since it was I who originally attributed
Rafael's argument to the Kuzari, I felt I should make it quite clear
that what I say here is dealing with the latter alone - DSL].
Simcha Streltsov (sim...@bu.edu) wrote:
: A theory does not have to be based on 100% provable argument to be
: correct. a theory is good enough for all pracitcal purposes if it
: is a good predictor.
You seem to have misunderstood the form of the Kuzari's argument. It
presents a set of data, and proposes that there is *only one plausible*
conclusion to be drawn from that data. And it gives reasons *why* it
thinks there is only one possible conclusion. Those reasons are, however,
demonstrably based on a set of false assumptions, as I showed. Hence
there *are* other plausible explanations, and the Kuzari's conclusion did
not follow.
: Kuzari is a very interesting example:
: when he posed it, it was on some shaky ground - exactly due to some
: of your considerations:; given limited number of observations,
: anyone can find a complex enough "theory " that will explain why one
: nation is differnt from all others.
: but now, we have more data than he did, so we can in effect check
: how good his theory predicted new data - so. _if_ there are no
: such examples, his theory becomes worthy of attention -
: the only caution we should take is not to substitute our own
: theory for Kuzari's - then all the predictive ability should
: be discounted
I'm afraid that your methodology seems to have gone slightly awry here.
Remember, the entire basis of the Kuzari's argument is that he is saying
that there is *no* other plausible explanation for the data he had. I
have argued that he is wrong: there *are* other plausible explanations.
Finding new data could therefore only support the Kuzari if it served
somehow to *eliminate* those other plausible explanations. But even if no
counterexample of national prophecy existed, it would not help the Kuzari,
since it would not serve to show that the alternative explanations for his
existing data did not work: because all the examples of non-national
prophecy are still themselves compatible with the alternative explanations
of the Kuzari's data.
Think about it like this:
(1) Original data set is A,B,C,D,E - A is the Torah, B,C,D,E are the
rest.
A,B,C,D,E may be explained in the Kuzari's way.
A,B,C,D,E may also be explained in 100 other ways.
We then discover new data.
(2) New data set is A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I (A still being the Torah)
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I may still be explained in the Kuzari's way (since
we are assuming that there are no counterexamples).
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I may also be explained in 100 other ways (since
F,G,H, and I are not counterexamples, they are not controversial -
only A is, and none of the new examples can show that the 100 other
possible ways of explaining A are not valid ones).
In other words, where the data is compatible with 101 interpretations, new
data can only help support one of those interpretations if it serves to
eliminate the others. The mere absence of a counterexample to one of
those interpretations is thus irrelevant. Remember, the basis of the
Kuzari's argument is not that his explanation is *possible* (that is
uncontroversially true) - it is that other explanations are *im*possible.
Note also that the argument against the Kuzari is *not* claiming that
things like A are a common phenomenon: only that *when* they occur
(however often or rarely that is) they are explicable in commonplace
*terms* - which is what the Kuzari was denying. Thus even the
demonstration that things like A are rare - or even unique - would not be
support for the Kuzari's case.
Simcha Streltsov
: Remember, the entire basis of the Kuzari's argument is that he is saying
: that there is *no* other plausible explanation for the data he had. I
: have argued that he is wrong: there *are* other plausible explanations.
: Finding new data could therefore only support the Kuzari if it served
: somehow to *eliminate* those other plausible explanations. But even if no
I am trying to avoid argueing "plausibilities". Let _us_ view Kuzari argument
as a theory. He argues that he knows of only 1 explanation, you argue that
there are others, I am sceptical of both, but who am I to enter into
the arguments of the giants?!
so, let's seee at your - very appropriate - experiment:
: (1) Original data set is A,B,C,D,E - A is the Torah, B,C,D,E are the
: rest.
: A,B,C,D,E may be explained in the Kuzari's way.
: A,B,C,D,E may also be explained in 100 other ways.
to clarify, Kuzari defines a [simple] classification rule such that A is
in one class, {BCDE} are in the other. He can not argue that just having
a rule is good by itself (that only works on SCJ!) -
because obviously there are 100 other rules that make the same or
other classification. But he argues that he has a logical argument
that this rule is correct.
: We then discover new data.
: (2) New data set is A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I (A still being the Torah)
: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I may still be explained in the Kuzari's way (since
: we are assuming that there are no counterexamples).
Now, again to clarify, we apply the same Kuzari classification rule to
A-I, and find that [arguebly!] {A} is still in one class, others -
are separate.
Is it a surprising result or not? depends how many new elements we found.
if Kuzari argument really reflects no rule, then we would expect a
proportion of new points to fall in the same class as {A}.
If they do not, it means that Kuazri argument is correct with
certain probability that can be estimated if there is enough new data.
(and, remember, his argument _is_ in essense probabilistic -
the better the tradition and the larger the size of the claimed
community, the more difficult it is to pass it - so I am not argueing
against your plausiblities, I am just trying to estimate them)
y...@my-dejanews.com
Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6oj3dk$p...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
> "Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Y...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6oj0vs$laa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > >In article <6oike4$j...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
> > > "Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >[snip]
> > >
> > >> >much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
> > >>
> > >> Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was
> > exclusionary
> > >> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
> > >>
> > >> >Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
> > >> >you die.")
> > >>
> > >> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
> > >
> > >Shelly, you're being (unintentionally, I believe) offensive. These are
> > Jewish
> > >Sages we're talking about. Whatever opinion you may hold about how informed
> > >they were, they were not stupid, and not prone to uttering nonsense, much
> > less
> > >recording it.
> > >
> > >When I see a quotation from the Chazal that doesn't make sense, I explore
> > the
> > >following possibilities:
> > >
> > >1) It was not translated correctly, or was otherwise garbled in
> > transmission.
> > >2) It is out of context ("Kill the best of Gentiles" is a good example.)
> > >3) The definition of the terms used in the quotation is different from the
> > one
> > >I'm using.
> > >
> > >I then ask for clarification or look it up myself. This method usually
> > works
> > >pretty well. Why don't you two define what you mean by "belief in
> > yourself"?
> > >Hint: does it have something to do with self-esteem?
> >
> > My statement of nonsense refers the quote. It it contrary to everything I
> > believe (as I understand it from the context of the discussion we were
> > having). Yes, it has everything to do with self-esteem, belief in what you
> > are doing is right and proper and having the confidence to follow through.
> > To defer that kind of belief to "a higher authority" to say "do this, now do
> > that, etc." is how I would view a slave -- not an independent, thinking
> > human being.
> >
> > You fully grasped what I meant by this, perhaps because of our extensive
> > conversations. I think that he did as well.
>
> Before I begin, I must say I agree with your 2 paragraphs above.
>
> > Lastly, when a sage said something I consider nonsense, that doesn't change
> > the evaluation because he was a "sage". [OK Richard, make your cracks. I
> > can see them coming].
>
> Here's where I think you missed what I was saying. To use a different
> example, suppose someone tells you: "Yisroel Markov said that someone should
> beat up Robert Kaiser." Since you know that I can't say such a thing, you
> call it nonsense. But the quotation could've been garbled in transmission or
> quoted out of context! Perhaps what I really said was: "_meet_ Robert
> Kaiser." Perhaps I did say "beat up," but meant "beat up in debate." These
> are alternatives 1 and 2 that I discussed above.
>
> In our case, alternative 3 (meaning of words has changed) probably and
> hopefully wouldn't apply. But it's a very real possibility with anything
> written more than 300 years ago. Consider: a contemporary of Christopher Wren
> called his design of St. Paul's Cathedral "Artificial, grandiose, and awful."
> He was being complimentary. Those words meant something different then. A
> major function of commentaries (meforshim) is to make sure the meaning of the
> words is preserved through the ages of Jewish scholarship.
>
> So before you dismiss a statement by a Jewish sage as "nonsense," I think you
> ought to consider these 3 possibilities. In our specific case, I think it's 2
> and 3 combined. The quote (if I identified it correctly - Rafael?) is from
> Pirkei Avot 2:4 where Rabbi Hillel says: "al ta'amin b'atzmekha ad yom
> motakh" which does translate as stated. However, it is a part of a rather
> lengthy statement, the breadth of which suggests that R. Hillel meant
> something different from what Rafael implied and you took issue with. IIRC
> the standard interpretation of this statement is "don't think you have
> merited the world-to- come until the day you die, for anything can happen in
> between." Perhaps someone here can elucidate -- Pirkei Avot is probably the
> most commented Mishna in existence.
To follow up: Bartenura on the above passage (Pirkei Avot 2:4) says that
"don't believe in yourself" means essentially: don't rest on your laurels,
thinking that nothing bad can happen to you because of what you've already
achieved; for Yohanan the Cohen Gadol was 80 years old when he became a
Sadducee.
I'm guessing that you won't have a problem with this interpretation, Shelly.
There is only one other commentary there (Tiferes Yisroel), and he merely
elucidates Bartenura's point further. Next time, please don't refer to the
Sages' words as "nonsense" without checking.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The daughters of Israel are becoming; it is poverty which makes them
unattractive." -- Talmud Bavli, Nedarim 66b
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Sheldon Glickler
[snip]
>To follow up: Bartenura on the above passage (Pirkei Avot 2:4) says that
>"don't believe in yourself" means essentially: don't rest on your laurels,
>thinking that nothing bad can happen to you because of what you've already
>achieved; for Yohanan the Cohen Gadol was 80 years old when he became a
>Sadducee.
>
>I'm guessing that you won't have a problem with this interpretation,
Shelly.
None at all.
>There is only one other commentary there (Tiferes Yisroel), and he merely
>elucidates Bartenura's point further. Next time, please don't refer to the
>Sages' words as "nonsense" without checking.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to follow up on every aspect of
every post that I find interesting (nor the ability, for that matter). When
someone uses a quote (or partial quote) to make a point, I have to take the
quote as he presented it.
In this case, I interpreted the quote exactly as presented. As such, my
"nonsense" was totally appropriate. Had he expounded upon it as you did,
then I would have agreed with the "don't rest on your laurels". If it makes
you happier, take what I said as applying to those words in the context
supplied.
Whether or not "sages" originally wrote the snippet is irrelevant. It
wouldn't matter if the snippet was from the greatest mind of all time or
from the local village idiot. I was referring to how those words were being
used right here by the poster.
IOW, no apology for my usage. It was appropriate.
Shelly
P&M
U. Wald
> Rafael (raf...@nyct.net) wrote:
>
> : Are there any other religions that claim to have experienced national
> : prophecy (i.e. the entire ancestry of a particular nation witnessing a
> : supernatural event simultaneously)?
>
> Yes. For example, the Crisans (Crisa was a city-state in Phocis, in
> central Greece). There was a famous temple of Apollo in the city: the
> Crisans claimed that this temple was founded following an appearance by
> Apollo to the entire city, at which he commanded the inhabitants to set up
> the cult, gave them instructions for its operation, as well as some more
> general ethical advice. He warned them that if they disobeyed him they
> would be punished. However, centuries later the Crisans started acting
> immorally, whereupon Apollo forsook them, and they were conquered by
> Delphi in the so-called First Sacred War. The conquest is historical; the
> account of the foundation (needless to say) is not. See the Homeric Hymn
> to Pythian Apollo 440-544; also Pausanias 10.37.5-8.
> David Levene
> Department of Classics
> University of Durham
See Deuteronomy 4:
"For ask now of the early days that came before you, from the day when God created man upon the earth, and from one end of the heaven until the other: has such a great thing as this ever been, or has such a thing ever been heard? Have people ever heard of the voice of [a?] God speaking from amidst a fire, as you have heard, and lived"
The as Crisa was destroyed long before the hymn was written its not a parallel to a national tradition. Also being only a possible municipal tradition it differs from a national tradition, as breaks in tradition are explained by abandonment (we happen to know about earlier abandonment in this case (ibid), but the possibility of previous abandonment in folks' minds is perhaps also a factor).