Kaplan the Bible Critic

From Mordecai Kaplan's Communings of the Spirit, entry from Sunday, April 21, 1929, 12:30PM.

Is it possible that I have made a discovery? I have a hunch that the writings of the "false" prophets have been incorporated into the Bible. I can never find a satisfactory background for Isaiah 13 and 14. Does it not seem plausible to assign these chapters to the so-called "false" prophets whom Jeremiah denounced (Jer. 29, 8)? May this not be the reason for the anonymity of these prophecies? If it should turn out that the "false" prophets were the authors of the anti-Babylonian prophecies, they would have to be credited with the new consolatory trend that we find in Biblical prophecy. It does not seem plausible to ascribe such lofty style and diction to any but the survivors of the great prophetic movement who had been carried captive into Babylon.

Orthodoxy and Pluralism

Is a pluralistic Orthodoxy possible, or do you think any attempts at real pluralism will lead to further denominationalism, with "pluralistic orthodoxy" joining the ranks of Open Orthodoxy, Centrist Orthodoxy, Ultra-Orthodoxy, Agudah Orthodoxy, Yeshivish Orthodoxy, Hasidic Orthodoxy, Chabad Orthodoxy, Zionistic Orthodoxy, Messianic Orthodoxy (Kahanism/Gush Emunim type - not J4J), and the billion other Orthodox groups.

Yikes. I didn't even realize we were that splintered. Perhaps we need intra-Orthodox pluralism before Jewish pluralism? And given the results of the Eternal Jewish Family conference, we're certainly not going in that direction. So, what's your take? Can Orthodoxy be pluralistic, or would such an effort be totally counterproductive and devolve into another branch of Orthodoxy?

Pet Peeve From An Argument I Had Today

Annoying logic: The existence of multiple opinions implies the existence of multiple truths.

(Related newsflash: Skeptodox is not a post-modernist.)

Does the Biblical View of God Bother You?

James Kugel makes a pretty compelling argument that ancient readers of the Bible viewed God in a completely different manner than we do now. We tend to view God as universal, omnipresent, omniscient, and remote, while early Biblical texts view God as close to this world and to humanity. In Tanach God reveals himself, people literally hear and see God (almost invariably after a “moment of confusion”), and he certainly doesn’t appear to be omniscient or omnipresent. (None of that "daber torah bilshon bnei adam" apologetics, please.)

Kugel suggests that “early is not necessarily better than late” and that perhaps the God of the Bible needs to be revisited in today’s theology. But it kind of bothers me that my religious ancestors believed in a very different deity - forgetting about our early polytheistic history.

Does the idea that we haven’t always viewed God in the same way bother you, particularly when it’s his book that’s describing him in the unconventional way?

Why I Like the Etiological Approach to Tanach

Hermann Gunkel was a German Protestant OT scholar in the late 19th and early 20th century. One of his key contributions to the study of the Torah was his analysis of Biblical stories as etiological tales. That is, as tales concerning origins. He argued that many if not most Biblical stories, particularly in Breishit, were composed in order to explain present day realities at the time of composition. They were merely reverse projections of the present.

Examples: Israel and Edom had a close connection, so we come up with a story of common ancestry. Beit El is a holy city, so we come up with a story of how Yaakov started it all. We perform infant circumcision, so we have a story of a covenant with Avraham. Various tribes are being unified, but maintaining northern and southern blocs, so we have another story of common ancestry, just this time with separate mothers based on geography. Etc, etc., etc.

What I like about this approach is that it implies that ancient Israelites didn't necessarily believe the stories when they were composed. I can imagine my ancestors sitting around a fire and inventing these tales, just like the Dybbuk or the Tooth Fairy. They become part of tradition, but as you grow up and realize they are not true you continue passing them on because they also provide meaning and a message and a national history to explain our way of life.

Fealty to Gedolim

I've been listening to a lot of kiruv "how-to" lectures during my commute, and the kiruv pros' lack of logic and sheer ga'avah goes far beyond what I could have ever expected.

I don't have unwavering respect for and belief in the utterances of scientists, but I know well enough that I don't have the knowledge or tools to address complicated (and at times, not complicated) scientific issues. The rabbis who I have been listening to all have the same approach: Here is what science says, and I am going to tell you why they are wrong! No credentials, no background, nothing. They are (in this instance) "just" rabbis. In most cases it seems as though they read a few Christian apologist websites and the conclusions from some Kitchen or Cassutto books, and voila - they are experts! Even worse is the shameful logic these clowns try to pass of as error-proof and convincing.

In these lectures I really see what "fealty to gedolim" means. Kiruv pros are the gedolim of the "Jewish approach to science" field, and their audiences - believers in the lectures I'm listening to - eat up every word they say, no matter how nonsensical their musings. Some of the questions I hear asked in the mp3s clearly come from intelligent people, but they are so off the mark. They don't challenge or question - ever. And that is where the problem lays.

Musing on Halachic Separatism

A few days ago my wife and I ate (kosher) lunch with the family of a close Muslim friend. Throughout the meal I couldn't stop thinking to myself that the express purpose of so many halachot is to prevent such meetings. Religion is a funny beast.

A Heretical Dvar Torah On the Canaanite Origins of Beit-El

A Dvar Torah courtesy of James Kugel, abridged:

It is clear from archaeological evidence that Beit-El was a city of Canaanite religious significance. In fact, the word 'el is a reference to the proper name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon. How does this connect with the story of Jacob's ladder at Beit-El? Simple: the purpose of the story is to sever the connection between Beit-El and Canaanite practice, thereby justifying the construction of a temple at that site during the time of Yerovam. (Edit: The connection between this episode and Yerovam isn't strong, but the episode of Yaakov at Beit-El explains how a city which apparently had a long career as a sacred site and ended up being chosen for one of two royal temples at the time of Yerovam, first came to be considered holy.)

The story does so in four ways:

1. Yaakov just chances upon the site. In the story, Beit-El is insignificant. The only reason Yaakov stops there is because the sun was setting. He just chanced upon it. It wasn't a bustling Canaanite religious center!

2. The site had no religious significance until Yaakov got there. Only after his weird dream did he realize that God was there (v'lo yadati!). Yaakov's dream converted the site from ordinary to sacred.

3. Matzevot are associated with Canaanite worship. Just about everywhere else in Tanach, matzevot are looked down upon. One of the first things we had to do when we got to Israel was destroy the matzevot that were there. But Yaakov built one! Why? Well, if some pillar was still at Beit-El at the time of the story's composition, it's clearly because Yaakov built it! Canaanites had nothing to do with it.

4. Why is the city called Beit-El? No, stupid! It's not named after the head of the Canaanite pantheon! It was called Luz until Yaakov got there are called it Beit Elohim!

Torah vs. Gilgamesh: What's The Big Deal? (*Answer Included)

I've never been able to figure out what the big deal was with the Epic of Gilgamesh and other non-Biblical flood stories. Until today, as far as I was concerned they simply corroborated the Biblical account. Well, today James Kugel treated me to a hearty dose of kefirah and explained the issue:

The similarities between the Torah account and Gilgamesh are striking, but the similarities go beyond the events described. Rather, it appears as though the two stories share a literary connection as well. They didn't only agree on what generally happened, but also on how the events should be retold, including things that could not be figured out by historical observation. The example Kugel uses is the phrase "God smelled the pleasing odor." This corresponds to the last three lines in Gilgamesh, which include the phrase, "The Gods smelled the sweet savor." Why should the Torah have mentioned that? Why not just that god "was pleased" with the sacrifice or nothing at all? How could any on-site observer of the flood or its aftermath know that God/the Gods smelled anything at all? This was the authors assertion, the very same expression, and it appears in both texts. This suggests that the texts either depended on each other or on an earlier source. But here's the problem: the earliest Gilgamesh fragments date from early in the 2nd millennium BCE, long before the Torah was given at Sinai with its flood story.

And there you have it, the reason that Gilgamesh is a problem.

R' Dovid Orlofsky: Skeptic Bloggers Are Make-Believe

Recently I've spent some time listening to kiruv lectures and finding some great gems that I'll share at a later time, but for now, the knowledge that we are all make-believe should tide you over.

Here is the quote, transcribed straight from a kiruv seminar at Ohr Sameach led by R' Dovid Orlofsky:

"People become frum, in my experience, because of people. They meet people, they are impressed by people. It’s people. It’s not the questions. People ask questions, but nine our of ten times they don’t care about the questions. I wish I could tell you that you are going to meet the apikores. You know. And he’s going to start shooting at you Rambams and you know, this and that. Those people don’t actually exist. They are make believe people on blogs. Don’t worry, You’ll never meet them. You know what I mean? Who are sitting here making up sources and bringing all these things. You don’t have to really worry about it too much. Most of the time most people are going to be impressed by you."

Forgetting about my existence (let me assure you, I do exist), his other point, which he and others stress throughout their lectures, is that people aren't attracted to Orthodoxy for intellectual reasons. Goes pretty well with Faranak Margolese's Off The Derech suggestion that almost all drop-outs from Orthodoxy leave because of bad experiences. You and I are evidence that this isn't the case, and the world is just beginning to realize that people have legitimate struggles with religion on intellectual grounds. But it doesn't matter, because I don't exist. Neither do you. Unsubscribe to XGH, OffTheDerech, DovBear, LubabNoMore, etc., save yourself some time - THEY ARE ALL MAKE BELIEVE.

R' Dovid Orlofsky: Evil Rosho Bloggers ______

You will never guess what R' Dovid Orlofsky said about us skeptic bloggers! Stay tuned for hilarity. (Don't hold your breath, but come back Sunday night when I'm back in town.)

Weird Post Over at Cross Currents

Eytan Kobre posted this today:

"I’ve been thinking of posting a piece or two on Jewish media bias and I still hope to do so. In the interim (which, in my case can last months . . .), however, I can’t resist posting the below item from today’s JTA News Bulletin, without comment.

No comment because even a thousand-word post couldn’t possibly make as clear as this item does just how profoundly out-of-touch JTA and other secular Jewish media outlets (who also get much of their material from JTA) are about the realities of Orthodox Jewish life. Unless, perhaps, using its telepathic powers or other forms of divination, it knows things about us that we don’t.

I only wish there was some way to convey to these media folks how embarrassing their publicly displayed ignorance of things Orthodox and, oftentimes of Jewish tradition, history and texts, is (assuming, that is, that they care.)

Rabbinic emissary to pray for rain

A thousand Orthodox rabbis are sending an emissary to Atlanta to pray for rain.

Rabbi [name omitted – EK] will perform an ancient prayer ritual Wednesday seeking divine help to end the drought in the South, the Christian Newswire reported. [The rabbi] reportedly performed the ritual in 1986, after which there was four days of rain.

“Orthodox Jews wish to show solidarity with those suffering from the drought and other natural disasters,” said [the rabbi]. “We want to kick off a nationwide movement of prayer. Furthermore, we wish to announce a program which we believe could curtail much of the disaster our country has been experiencing.”


What doesn't Eytan Kobre like here? Where's the ignorance of Orthodoxy? So what if the article makes the "ancient prayer ritual" sound completely wacko? Doesn't seem like the article says anything out of touch with mainstream Orthodox Judaism.

Guess Who!

In the spirit of Mississippi Fred MacDowell, give this one your best shot:

Who Is a Jew?

I find it hilarious (and somewhat distasteful) that most Orthodox Jews are perfectly comfortable sitting around a Shabbat table and chatting about who is Jewish and who is not. It doesn't matter if their subject's family converted to Christianity four generations ago, only to become lapsed. It's still, "Did you know that Priscilla is Jewsh? She doesn't know, but her great-great-great-great grandmother lit shabbos candles! Her kids will be Jewish!" Forget about the practicing reform Jew down the block whose father is Jewish but mother isn't. He's just faking.