Re: Historicity of Scripture (was Re: Common Sense on Gay Rights)

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 19:53:03 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

On 2011-03-03, Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 02:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

On 2011-03-02, Yisroel Markov <ey.markov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:21:30 +0000 (UTC), sheldonlg
<sheldonlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

[snip]

Non-Orthodox scholars are in almost unanimous agreement
that the Torah was NOT given by God to Moses, but was
compiled from existing documents and legends about the
time of Ezra; Ezra is a strong candidate for the Redactor.

And I should accept their take on this because?..

Because it makes sense, and is supported by the evidence.

IOW, this particular interpretation of evidence makes sense to you. To
me, a different one makes more sense.

So I choose to listen to different scholars.

Those who have looked at the secular historical evidence,

All non-hearsay evidence is secular.

including not only archaeology, but also the geology of
the region, do not accept the historical account. That
does not mean that they do not accept that there is
SOMETHING true in it, but that the truth has been
selected and embellished, including being aughmented
with what never was to establish what should not have
been included.

I have posted what I consider to be a possible account
of the Exodus, and it is rather brief and has only a
few key items in common with the text of the Torah.
I consider my attempt as at best an approximation, but
inthe general realm of the truth. What it states
happened in the Torah would at least involve demonstrable
miracles; THEY believed in them, but I do not.

IOW, you're presupposing the conclusion. A scientific approach can do
nothing else. But I'm not so encumbered (hi, Shelly! :-)

Under these circumstances, the Torah cannot be taken to
be the word of God, but only Divinely inspired. As the
commentators on the Documentary Hypothesis put it, "The
whole is greater than the sum of its parts," meaning
that even the composition is inspired. We have evidence
from ancient writings which have been preserved as to
what might have happened, but quite definitely the
Exodus from Egypt may have started as stated there,
reading "squads" for "thousands", but after crossing the
boundary sea, did not continue as stated. I believe that
much was put in to justify the primacy of the branch of
the priesthood to which Ezra and Nehemiah belonged.

Either you've missed my point entirely, or else you only care for
stating your opinion yet again. See below.

[snip]

I don't recall calling the Tora "divinely inspired" - this description
applies to Na"KH - but the greater point is that it *does not matter.*
It's canonized. That's it: as far as Jewish law goes, the debate over
its text is over.

Neither Conservative nor Reform Judaism accepts that view.
The new Conservative Chumash explicitly takes the view of
the Documentary Hypothesis, which explicitly rejects the
idea of Torah miSinai. This means that they do not accept
is as from God, and therefore the accuracy of any part of
it can be questioned.

Well, duh! :-)

But, incidentally, even C and R, as they question the text, can't
propose a "better" version thereof. On what basis?

It is not even clear that the debate about the text is over.
Even the Talmud states that there are questions about the
precise text. And the Qumran scrolls indicate that the copiers
were not that careful, and that there were several different
versions of the text copied in those caves.

I'll stipulate to the above paragraph in its entirety. Again, in
Rabbinic Judaism, this simply *does not matter.* We have settled on
the text of our Constitution. Period. That's it. Debate's over, and no
traditional Jew will have such a debate vis-a-vis halakha. As an
interesting exercise, yes; otherwise, no.

This has been discussed before, and the non-Orthodox do not agree.

So what amendments have been proposed, and on what *factual* basis?

[snip]

Not quite the opposite. Yes, it was dictated by God, but traditional
sources acknowledge the existence of at least spelling differences. My
larger point is that such differences are legally irrelevant.

Some are, and some are not.

No, they all are, by definition.

See Tov about actual changes in the
text being made at Qumran by the scribes.

Irrelevant, as per above. Like I said, not even a Tora scroll signed
by Moshe himself would change things.

We will not get that; I can make some guesses about what
happened in the time of Moshe, but I would doubt that he
was a priest in those times. The priesthood was probably
a hereditary group already.

A B.A. in duh!

[snip]

I suggest you read Friedman's text, _Who Wrote the Bible?_
to see some of the evidence.

Evidence for what? That some question whether the Tora is from God?
How does that change anything in this discussion?

Evidence that the Torah is very definitely NOT from God,
but rather that it was a compilation by man. Deuteronomy
seems to have been an earlier compilation, by Jeremiah and
his scribe Baruch. Look at the evidence.

I have. More importantly, *we* - the Jewish scholars over millenia -
have. There can be *no* evidence that a given text (even a Pepsi ad)
is not from God - can't prove a negative. What "seems" as one thing to
you can seem quite differently to someone else.

[snip]

Mosheh commands them to write
the commandments on tablets, in a non-permanent manner, after
crossing the Jordan. I do not recall any statement in Joshua
that it was done.

See Yehoshua 8:30-35.

OK, so it was done. But the method of writing on the
stones would not last for long, certainly not until the
Kingdom was established.

Yes, and therefore what? This side point changes nothing in this
discussion, which has become mostly about *the legal status* of the
extant Tora text, not its origin.

[snip]

What we have is the best we could do. The point of canonization is
that it doesn't matter. Once the Supreme Court of the Jewish people
had finalized its version of any given text being canonized, that's it
- as far as halkaha goes, it is treated as a perfect text, for to do
otherwise shakes the foundations of the Law. The well-known joke about

The Supreme Court can, and should, consider new evidence, it
it is really to be that, and not just a bunch of theocrats.

Non-sequitur - we're not talking about evidence here. A Supreme Court
that unilaterally amends the accepted text of the Constitution is one
that ought to be tarred and feathered at the very least, if not
executed for high treason.

This has happened already. The Founding Fathers would not
recognize the present interpretations.

Another non-sequitur (there's an unusual number of them in this
thread). Interpretations, sure. The text itself, no - which SC had
amended the text?

Likewise, the Talmud has the famous midrash about Moshe-rabeinu
himself being unable to understand what a Tanna was teaching, *in his
very name,* about a thousand years later. Can there be any clearer
statement about the power of interpretation?!

If it is not written/dictated by God, then why can't amendments be put
through to deal with changing times?

ISTM that you overlooked the gist of what I said. It *is* dictated by
God. What we have is not 100% the original text, but we have to treat
it as such, "for to do otherwise shakes the foundations of the Law."

Would a dictation by God have so many gross errors?

What gross errors?

What we have is very definitely NOT the original test.

Nu, that's what I said. So what?

I disagree. I think that accepting that it is not "the original" text
allows then for modifications.

VERY definitely.

No, no such procedure exists. Not in Rabbinic Judaism. Yours is
different, but that's no surprise.

When have I indicated that I consider Rabbinic Judaism to
be the Judaism I believe?

Never, and that's precisely what I said - "yours is different."

Before I knew better, I thought
that the Torah account was at least a fair approximation
to the actual events, but I could never have accepted the
idea of a Mosaic Oral Law transmitted through the path
stated in Pirkei Avoth. The Oral Law is a key part of
Rabbinic Judaism.

A M.S. in duh!

Modifications based on what? On how you or I want it to read? You
can't treat a foundational document that way. Why do you think it's so
difficult to amend the US Constitution? How much more so here, where
(as I already wrote) "the other Party to the agreement can't be
reliably contacted."

It is not difficult enough to amend the Constitution.

Erm, you seem to be buttressing my point.

And if it is Divinely inspired, it is no harder to contact
the other Party than it was then.

Hmm... really? How would you go about that?

I see no reason why people today are less capable of receiving
Divine inspiration than they were then.

Aha, and you'd accept their statements thereof based on... what?

[snip]

Herman, you, and me do not disagree about the source of the Na"KH.
What you and Herman don't appear to appreciate is the Jewish legal
framework around the canon, what it does and doesn't allow the Sages
to do.

No, I get it. I know that there is the legal framework that was
developed from it.

Yes, you know. I don't think you appreciate it for what it is, though
- the primary component of post-Temple Judaism.

The Pharisees added their "bylaws"

Yes.

and canonized them as well.

No.

What we have in Orthodox Judaism is the 2000 year old views
of this sect, with later interpretations.

Yes, pretty much. Other sects pretty much fell by the wayside and
didn't survive, unless you count Karaites. I prefer Rabbinic Judaism;
I understand that your preferences differ.

It appears that there were others.

Of course there were others.

The Samaritans survived
quite well, even with their need to sacrifice on Mount Gerizim,
until Muslim pressure reduced their numbers. The decline of
the Karaites indicates considerable pressure also; military
force was used in Spain, and possibly elsewhere.

The Enlightenment should have forced the rabbis to reconsider
everything;

Except foundational things, and halakha.

only the Reform were willing to, and the traditionalists
became even more rigid.

Yes, and that's another reason for me to dislike R as an ideology.

[snip]

Shelly, to understand this it's *vitally* important to realize that
Judaism is a legal system, with its own rules, some of Divine origin,
some not, but real rules all through. It has rules of procedure, rules
of acceptable evidence, juducial doctrines, quorum requirements, etc.
Any so-called "spirituality," however important, is secondary to that.
Perhaps more precisely, no Jewish spirituality is possible without the
legal system, which "supplies fuel" to spirituality.

Most legal systems are shot through with inconsistencies.

Yes, so?

I have read the "rules" of inference, and they are not rules,
but at most guidelines, and fraught with problems of interpretation.

Yes, and that's by design! Can you please understand that? if you do,
what's your problem with that?

Then why are they called "rules"?

For lack of a better word, Herman. How would you translate "midda" in
this context? It's not exactly a rule - usually, the word is
translated "trait" or "measure." Once again you're trying to force an
alien (to you) tradition into the forms you're familiar with, rather
than trying to understand it on its own terms. If you persist,
understanding will continue to elude you.

Rules of inference, as such outside of geometry, were not
understood until the 19th century.

Maybe in Europe they weren't. From what I can see, the Sages
understood the 13 Middot very well.

Again, what's your problem with that?

I appreciate that we introduced that system. However, legal codes can
change if they are not assumed to be written by God.

They are not, and they do change, according to relevant procedure. But
Tora is not a legal code, any more than the US Constitution is. Are
you still confused?

[snip]

So why can the rabbis not understand that scientific
knowledge supersedes erroneous transmission of even
Divinely inspired material?

They understand, but they disagree with your premise. Personally, I
would not like science, ever changing and malleable (especially where
history is concerned), to really influence things which are supposed
to be eternal. That's chasing fads. No, thanks. It matters not a whit
to what I must do and not do on Shabbat whether the world was created
in six days or fifteen billion years, or whether the Sun literally
stood still for Yehoshua, or why a strong wind had to precede the
splitting of the Sea of Reeds.

Besides - and you *always* ignore this aspect - law is not science.
Different domains, different rules, different goals.

I'll put it in starker terms: even if I were to agree that the Tora
was written from scratch 2,500 years ago, as you say, it wouldn't make
the slightest difference to what I believe I must do as a Jew. The
part of Jewish people to whose heritage I lay claim has accepted it as
our foundational document, and has kept it as such for a couple
thousand years. All that the johnny-come-latelies can do is split away
a part of our people, however large, that for whatever reason believes
in some other role for the document, and thereby create some other
Judaism. So it goes. I'll stick to what I prefer.

The first commandment to
man, in Genesis, requires us to study the universe and
use the results to achieve mastery of it.

And we do. This has nothing to do with law, though.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NYT: Israel With a Russian Accent (and Pork)
    ... And are they really geting their ideas of "tikkun olam" from Torah ... Now we get back to actions being the operative thing in Judaism, ... I would say in this case, the "Ballpark" is Judaism, it was built by ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Historicity of Scripture (was Re: Common Sense on Gay Rights)
    ... relying on God's help, for surely God will guide his steps and not let ... Rabbinic Judaism, this simply *does not matter.* We have settled on ... That some question whether the Tora is from God? ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Alternative Bar Mitzvah Ceremonies For The Active/Child
    ... The point is that Judaism does _not_ relegate itself to just ... the synagogue and ritual worship. ... God himself. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: JFS loses appeal
    ... between God and man. ... It's about torah m'sinai. ... to be the very foundation of Judaism. ... Lithuanian style yeshiva's, though others may peruse it once in ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Historicity of Scripture (was Re: Common Sense on Gay Rights)
    ... relying on God's help, for surely God will guide his steps and not let ... few key items in common with the text of the Torah. ... Neither Conservative nor Reform Judaism accepts that view. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)