Of course, a difficulty with trying to discern which academics are frum and which aren't is that sometimes things are more gray than they are black and white. That, plus who knows how subjective the determination of frum identity is to some people versus others?
When being presented with information, and lacking the time or ability to independently verify the emes, it is helpful to know the backround of the person presenting the information.
Would you recommend something along the lines of what Andy suggested?
>>>This is a strange commented to be directed at a leading Judaic studies scholar.
Yet you seem to have no problem with Prof Kaplan's initial remark regarding 'frum scholars'. If our only criteria is pure truth, then why did he even bother to mention the religious leanings of those scholars? If it is relevant to the academic who is equipped to otherwise judge arguments on their merits, it is relevant to the layperson commentator like Andy, isn't it?
Because when you say "our our only criteria" you don't mean Prof. Kaplan who isn't checking tzitzit. He was writing in the context of a blog post in which this question is meaningful to a lot of people who were commenting. You mean people for whom the frum provenance of ideas is relevent.
Do you really think Lawrence Kaplan is interested in who is frum and who isn't in his field, in terms of whether their scholarship is sound or not? But many readers of Hirhurim perhaps are.
I didn't read this comment thread and I don't know Andy, but to me (based on that ignorance) the business about listing who's frum on a web site sounded sarcastic. My reading was that Andy was thinking Kaplan was giving preference to Orthos and was being sarky about it.
On another topic, can we designate Marc Shapiro as ba'al ha-footnote? I've found at least two interesting things to read based on some oh-by-the-way throwaway comments in his footnotes, which are more interesting than many writers' main texts.
>I didn't read this comment thread and I don't know Andy, but to me (based on that ignorance) the business about listing who's frum on a web site sounded sarcastic. My reading was that Andy was thinking Kaplan was giving preference to Orthos and was being sarky about it.
Maybe you're right. *lightbulb*
>On another topic, can we designate Marc Shapiro as ba'al ha-footnote?
LOL
I'm not sure whether I can accept your arguments here. Are you frum?
As I understood the comment, Professor Kaplan was trying to make the point that 'frumkeit' and critical theory are not mutually exclusive. Considering the limited resources of time, reading material, etc. available to the layperson, if he/she knows that the 'experts' in a field like Biblical scholarship who share his/her religious outlook reject certain theories or viewpoints, do you think he/she should still should invest the time and energy to thoroughly investigate those areas? In that context, isn't it valuable to know 'who's who' in the field in terms of religious affiliation?
>In that context, isn't it valuable to know 'who's who' in the field in terms of religious affiliation?
Only if you're trying to convince people who think its relevent to the soundness or kosherness of their argument .
>>>Only if you're trying to convince people who think its relevent to the soundness or kosherness of their argument .
The question is not 'Is critical theory true or false', but rather 'Is critical theory worth investigating?' The latter is a value judgement, not a true/false question, and the value system and biases of the person answering play a role.
This is the same motivation people have to only read books with haskamas. They need to make sure it's "safe" first.
Wow. First of all, I said that it didn't matter much. Second, the part about the institutions giving info regarding their scholar's religiosity was obviously written "pen in cheek". What I consider "frum" someone else might consider a shaigetz. However, since Prof Kaplan was attempting to prove that one can be religious and still suscribe to some sort of Higher Criticism, he must have attached some? importance to that fact. Whether it was only to assuage the fears of certain people or because he actually feels that it is meaningful is irrelevant. For whatever reason he finds it useful to know this information, someone else might as well. That is all for now. More later.
I've blogged this anecdote before but it is worth repeating:
I was having dinner several years ago in Jerusalem with a frum Bar Ilan Bible scholar and finally asked him how he managed to teach biblical criticism at Bar Ilan.
He said quite happily and sincerely, "First I teach all the meforshim. Then I look at the students and say to them, 'Now we are going to see what the kofrim say about the text.'"
I had to go because the library was closing (I live in Lakewood; i.e. no internet access at home). Fred, I am somewhat surprised that you were so offended by my remark. I would think that what I just wrote in my previous comment should have been obvious. I see now that chaim b. made essentially the same point. As an aside, I am personally more interested in Lower Criticism, at least when it comes to biblical texts. Rabbinic texts is a different matter; there textual criticism only interests me insofar as it points to the antiquity/reliability of a given manuscript tradition. Or, of course, when the different versions have meaningful differences. Of course this is the difference between Torah SheBiKtav(whoever the original author(s) was(were) and Torah SheBaalPeh.
if he/she knows that the 'experts' in a field like Biblical scholarship who share his/her religious outlook reject certain theories or viewpoints, do you think he/she should still should invest the time and energy to thoroughly investigate those areas
I dont get it. If Ortho scholar X accepts DH, does he then truly share your (Ortho layman) "religious outlook"? If the answer is yes, מה טוב but chances are if you're concerned about this at all, then your answer to that will be no. And if that is the case, what difference does it make to you, who have prejudicously rejected the DH out of hand, whether one of the proponents of DH is "Ortho"? I will grant that a time factor is involved. Laymen, in fact professional scholars as well, cannot possibly be expected to cover all the scholarly literature to form an informed opinion. So authority does play a part. But this is not ideal and must be admitted to be less than optimal. You cannot expect universities or scholars themselves though to stoop to your layman level to spell these things out.
For whatever reason he finds it useful to know this information, someone else might as well
I am sure he knows that information bec he knows the information, not that he went specifically looking for it. If you mr chaim b or andy etc happen to find out that scholar X in your Ortho shul subscribes to the DH then do with that as you will. But it is silly to suspend all opinion about a work youve read until you find out the affiliation of the author. Accept or reject the thesis on the basis of the thesis, not on the length of the author's peyos.
First I teach all the meforshim. Then I look at the students and say to them, 'Now we are going to see what the kofrim say about the text.'"
LOL
Ive heard that a certaon prof used to begin his DH classes at Hebrew U (?) with "b'ezrat hashem, today we will prove that the torah did come from god at sinai." :)
that should have said "...the torah did NOT come from god at sinai."
Let's see where we stand at the moment. On one side (which seems to believe that there is no legitimate reason to want to know the religious affiliation (or lack thereof) of a scholar or even to mention it unless you are a Nazi) we have mivami and S. On the opposing sideline we have the Jewish Studies faculty at McGill U (see the beginning of Prof Levy's paper in "Modern scholarship and the study of the Torah") as well as Maran Ba'al ha-Footnote in his intro to his book on the Principles of Faith. Um, I'll go with the Professors and give up the points.
huh? i dont know what b levy wrote or what you think m shapiro wrote but im sure it is not what you make it out to be. if they mentioned as a note of interest that author x is orthodox and a proponent of theory y, that is a matter of interest that they happen to know. i do not believe they refused to pick up the book with theory y until they found out that the author is ortho. they could have appreciated the book or theory (even if not agreeing with it) without that info as well. it was impt to point out to their readers, probably, to prove a point that being Ortho and a proponent of DH are not absolutely mutually exclusive. but that doesnt mean they believe it is necessary or religiously demanded. do you understand the difference (and i ask wadr)? in fact, m shapiro has written to this effect on various email lists so you certainly cannot ascribe to him what you claim (just search mail jewish or avodah)
and even if i were somehow to grant you are right with regards to those two, you are again succumbing to the same logic of attributing respect to authority rather than facts. Does the argument make sense to you? or are you only accepting it bec two "profs" say so? I still say the thesis should be the final arbiter, not the proponent/author affiliation.
>Fred, I am somewhat surprised that you were so offended by my remark.
I wasn't offended, although I apologize if it came off as if I was. I disagreed with what I thought you meant, and the thoughts came to my head and I wrote a post about it. Rest assured that if I wasn't responding to "andy," but an actual identifiable person I would not have built the post around your comment.
>I would think that what I just wrote in my previous comment should have been obvious. I see now that chaim b. made essentially the same point.
Since you said that you made it tongue in cheek, it seems that I misinterpreted your intent. I don't see how Chaim B. agrees with you.
>As an aside, I am personally more interested in Lower Criticism, at least when it comes to biblical texts.
Same here.
>Let's see where we stand at the moment. On one side (which seems to believe that there is no legitimate reason to want to know the religious affiliation (or lack thereof) of a scholar or even to mention it unless you are a Nazi) we have mivami and S. On the opposing sideline we have the Jewish Studies faculty at McGill U (see the beginning of Prof Levy's paper in "Modern scholarship and the study of the Torah") as well as Maran Ba'al ha-Footnote in his intro to his book on the Principles of Faith. Um, I'll go with the Professors and give up the points.
Were you writing tongue in cheek or not?
If we are discussing whether or not Orthodox Jews say or believe X then its relevent. If we are learning from people, its irrelevent.
Fred- apology accepted. Since I don't usually have much time to write my comments, I write them bekitzur and hope that they will somehow be understood. The part about the universities posting info about their faculty's religiousity was,as previously stated, written "pen in cheek". The sentiment behind my comment,however, was meant semi-seriously in a wistful way; to wit- I would like to know that information about a scholar, especially on a subject like Biblical Criticism where preconceived notions about the existence of prophecy etc. play some role in how a scholar approaches the subject. That is Not to say that I do not read books or articles written by "kofrim"; just that the info would give me a better perspective on what he/she is writing. As for mivami, it is not two professors but three; I am not sure which of the three he is leaving out but even with only two (or none) I will still take the field with Truth as my guide. Whew.
in terms of knowing whether scholars are frum or not -- while Rambam has a dictum to שמע האמת ממי שאמרה, in terms of reading their works, the Rambam does indeed codify not reading sifrei minim, which was what Rabbi Parnes' article was all about - the one which Marc Shapiro wrote his book in response to. perhaps the work of a frum scholar on the topic would not have the status of sifrei minim.
So I can see how some can deem this information relevant.
Interesting point, Josh.
Thanks Andy. No hard feelings, I hope, even if we disagree!
Although I'm not sure I'll be offline for the rest of the day, I want to wish everyone a חג שמח!
What exactly do we disagree on?
Just in case the horse is still breathing,one more quote. In his review of Shapiro's book in the Edah Journal, Menachem Kellner writes "Each of these books" (his, Shapiro's, and Berger's) "was written by a professional academic specializing in Judaic studies; the three authors are themselves personally observant Jews,roughly affiliated with what used to be called "Modern Orthodoxy."". There, now it can be sent to the glue factory. Truthfully,however, there is a pragmatic reason (at least for me) to know whether an author is observant. When I bought Barry Levy's book "Fixing G-d's Torah" I put it on my living room shelf (where it resides next to books by McCarthy,Zipor,Hendel etc.). My wife(a true aishes chayil; she thought she was marrying a more or less "typical" yeshiva bachur) asked why of all books (I have thousands downstairs out of public view) I had to display that one; what bothered her of course was the title, which Levy himself discusses in the Edah Journal. Fortunately,I was able to tell her that Prof Levy is an observant Jew and the title should be understood in that light. One more thing; in matters of Halachah one certainly has to know something about the religious background of the author. For example, I might agree with L. Ginzberg's argument that the Magen Avraham is wrong when it comes to wine vs grape juice but I don't value his opinion on these matters independently of his argument as I would value the opinion of a major posek like RMF or RSZA; LG was, after all, a mechalel shabbos. Therefore, while I have his peirush on Yerushalmi Brachot on my shelf, when I finally get his "Ma'aneh Levi" it will go in the basement. I hope that's all.
Sorry. I can't seem to think and type at the same time. I meant to cite,in regard to my discussion of Ginzberg,the attitudes of some poskim with regard to Besamim Rosh. Although they recognized it as a forgery they still cited it when his argument made sense(see T. Fishman's article in the Y H Yerushalmi jubilee volume pg 78-80).
>LG was, after all, a mechalel shabbos.
is that true? Ithink not, but I could be wrong.
Why do you say Ginzberg is a mehalel Shabbat?
Read his son's biography.
>Read his son's biography.
Even easier would be for you to expand on that comment a bit, since most readers will not have the opportunity to read his son's biography.
Just one example because it is my favorite. LG and A. Marx had to go to an upper floor of a building on Shabbat. M asked G if one is allowed to use the elevator; G said no. When M reached the top he saw G waiting for him and asked "Didn't you say that you can't ride in an elevator today". "Yes",replied G,"but I didn't ask".
my problem with banning the reading anything, even if the Rambam may have banned it, is that we become more and more cult-like. It's like claiming "believe in what I'm saying, and it's forbidden to investigate any claims to the contrary". I, for one, will read anything and everything.
If anyone's still reading this thread, care to comment?
Ah the dangers of blogging regarding sensitive issues! The point I was trying to make, no doubt ineffectively, was a sociological and cultural one, namely, that in Israel it appears that one can be a member in good standing of the Modern Orthodox community (I know each phrase here opens a can of worms) while adhering to a critical view of the bible , but not so in North America (NA). In general, and this is not only my observation, one hears "Orthodox" scholars in Israel openly expressing radical scholarly views that "Orthodox" scholars in NA would express, if at all, only "be-hadrei hadarim." As to why this is so, this is a difficult question.
Regarding the Rambam's statement in the Intro to the Eight Chapters, of course I accept it. BTW, I have written an article on the EC (Edah Journal, summer 2002) where among other things, building on the work of Herbert Davidson, I discuss at some length the Rambam's use of Farabi's "Selected Aphorisms" in the EC.
There. I find the point just made by Prof Kaplan interesting and since I am not a part of the academic world, I would not have known this otherwise.
BTW, I assume that Andy's suggestion that the religious affiliation of scholars should be posted on their University website was made tongue in cheek. Personally, I find it to be extremely funny, even if I may be the butt of the joke.
I also obviously believe that a professor's religious affiliation --or indeed whether he or she for that matter is Jewish -- is completely irrelevant with respect to his or her scholarly qualifications and their being hired for a university position in Jewish Studies.
One last comment: I'm sorry for responding so late. I hadn't checked "On the Main in Line" for the last while. Mea Culpa.
prof kaplan- You probably don't have the time (or the interest) to read the comments I made on this blog; I pointed out that I did indeed mean that part "tongue in cheek" although my intent was simply to be funny (Jay Leno is shaking in his shoes) not to poke fun at your comment.
Andy: Explanation appreciated.
R Aron Soloveichik in his 2 part drashah supporting the concept of Torah u Mada mentioned a story re Freud and noted that RAS father RM Soloveichik felt that there was nothing wrong with relating an insight from an apikoris such as Freud ala kabel haemes. RAS and his father however felt that "critcal" Bible and Talmud scholraship ala Wellhausen, was an exception and should not be studied as they had an "anti-Torah" agenda. Freud in contrast was not attempting to destroy Torah even in nhis Moses and Monotheism. He was just espousing theories which were unacceptable but not agenda driven. RAS based this on the concept of seforim chitzonim being forbidden. Despite their pro Torah bent he felt that these studies were not appropriate for YU
What is critical Talmud scholarship ala Wellhausen?
Wellhausen proposed a total inversion of the history of Jewish religion. Has anything similar been proposed by Talmud source critics?
Commenting by HaloScan
