Ya, its good, but you can tell by this article at how Schiffman tries to walk the tight-rope between both worlds. He uses careful words and sentences. You can read his books and see that he does not believe in TSBP from Sinai but as something that progressed over time.
Like people mentioned on the comments, the more you know the more traditional Judaim flies out the window. You can't have it both. I'm sure he sticks to it because he is an FFB.
I feel a little badly for him, because he's somehow singled out in the j-blogosphere out of all the Orthodox scholars in academia. At the same time, he must be acutely aware that BAR is not the most esoteric publication in the world.
I think it might be fair to say there is a realm of *Orthodox* academic scholarship, that, while it may not pass the Lakewood smell test, is still Orthodoxish. For example, Prof. Schiffman's work is largely dedicated to showing how rabbinic Judaism was *not* a creation of the rabbis in the 1st century CE and also with trying to align rabbinic literature with the facts and history of those centuries. Clearly he is regarded as a sound scholar, even if all of his conclusions are not necessarily adopted as the mainstream consensus.
BTW I believe he is *not* FFB. I think he was raised in the Conservative movement.
"Lawrence Schiffman: Yeah, it’s fair. Inerrancy assumes a kind of literalism never adopted in Jewish tradition."
An interesting statement.
He will be lecturing in San Diego this year with a brand new DSS exhibit. If I pin him down for an interview, how much would it be worth to you ;)
I believe he is singled out because he is the most talked about in general by the media. Its not the blogosphers fault. Is Dawkins the only atheist author out there? But lets face it, when he says the believes in some sort of exodus, it does not take a genius to realize there is something underneath it. Or this one after the others profess that they really would want to be believers:
I see the whole thing as a lifelong quest. It’s not that either a person believes or doesn’t believe. The life experiences of people are very difficult and very complex, and believing in God is itself a challenge. It’s not about whether I know the Exodus happened or didn’t happen. It has to do with understanding the difficult world that we’re in. Faith is a process.
I fully agree with this statement, but, again, how many ways can one contort something like the Exodus for example, to fit evidence. Eventually, the only thing you CAN say is "something happened" where as before, you would say, "I believe a,b,c etc. happened"
For example, Prof. Schiffman's work is largely dedicated to showing how rabbinic Judaism was *not* a creation of the rabbis in the 1st century CE and also with trying to align rabbinic literature with the facts and history of those centuries.
True, but he can only take it so far back, which is obviously not his fault. And by him showing that it is an older practice that rabbis made it, it is far away from saying it was a practice for the klal in general from way past. He eventually gets to the fact at how things changed and rabbis basically turned the Torah into a form of study rather than temple practice. If they turned it into, one can say that it was not studied with the methodologies that we see in Talmud. It evolved into that. Therefore, laws derived in Talmud are probably by a biproduct of that evolution and not necassarily something that ancient. Perhaps some practices were, but who knows how much.
If you dident catch any of that let me know, I am at work typing rather quickly :)
Well, he qualifies it:
>Admittedly there is a literalist strain in a minority of medieval Jewish thinkers and a minority—maybe a growing minority—in modern Judaism, but it’s not classical Judaism. The Talmud doesn’t take the Bible literally in the Protestant sense.
>I fully agree with this statement, but, again, how many ways can one contort something like the Exodus for example, to fit evidence. Eventually, the only thing you CAN say is "something happened" where as before, you would say, "I believe a,b,c etc. happened"
It entirely depends what he means. Are we talking about an Egyptian phase in Israel's history? Are we talking about a historical Moshe? Is he adopting a Sarna-esque approach to interpreting 'eleph'? Is it merely leaving the possibility that a great deal of data has been misinterpreted and/ or not yet found? What does he mean when he once said that he sees the books of Joshua and Shoftim to be basically concurrent instead of one before the other?
Like I said above, this sort of thing is hardly, hardly the mainstream of Orthodoxy. But see below.
>True, but he can only take it so far back, which is obviously not his fault. And by him showing that it is an older practice that rabbis made it, it is far away from saying it was a practice for the klal in general from way past.
But then you get into the various (traditional) interpretations of what Torah she-be-'al peh means. Some people could not reconcile themselves to the Rambam's view that only things that no one argued are truly Sinaitic, but the view is there.
You yourself once told me that another Orthodox scholar of note (why not let's leave the names out) specifically told you that he sees the role of Chazal as bringing Torah to the masses, of increasing observance among them in a practical way. This is surely not identical with the traditional understanding of who they were and what they did, and it is also not the mainstream Orthodox view today. But it is certainly Orthdox friendly. It is certainly tradition friendly. It is certainly keep-praxis-in-the-domain-of-posekim friendly.
"But lets face it, when he says the believes in some sort of exodus, it does not take a genius to realize there is something underneath it."
the temptation to be cagey is in both directions, i.e. he may want to shield himself from scholarly criticism too.
I am sure he does. Moshe Bernstein's oft-referred to article in an early edition of the TUM Journal discusses the problems an Orthodox scholar has in Bible in academia, from both sides. I think he mentions that Robert Alter has been called a crypto-fundamentalist. Can you imagine if he had a beard and wore tzitzis? Man, people would be checking those tzitzis, but in the opposite way.
"Man, people would be checking those tzitzis, but in the opposite way."
LOL
the temptation to be cagey is in both directions, i.e. he may want to shield himself from scholarly criticism too..
He is friends with R' Adlerstein and that is exactly what he told me about Schiffman.
You yourself once told me that another Orthodox scholar of note (why not let's leave the names out) specifically told you that he sees the role of Chazal as bringing Torah to the masses, of increasing observance among them in a practical way....
Yes, but I believe that is quite different when we talk about actually asking oneself. "Do I believe in the historical claims of the Torah." How it came to the masses is a different issue. How can one take the population account allegorically? I believe Schiffman has problems with it as well and therefore is reduced to saying "something happened" So is he taken a Sarna-esque way of interpreting eleph, I dought it. If he was, I don't think he would have seemingly difficulties answering it.
I seem to recall him doing the same thing in that interview for a Karaite newspaper. I will admit, perhaps it is the fault of the translator of the piece, but Shiffman says that there are difficulties and that you can fry your brain and not get a sufficient answer.
The thing is, from a traditional perspective written and oral Torah really aren't separate. I think the idea of the bifurcation is modern. You will never, ever hear the expression implying that there are two Torahs (except for the odd apologetic which will note the appearance of the expression 'torot' in Leviticus), but the constant refrain in the sources is that they are one. Given this I think that it's all one discussion for traditional Judaism.
The concept of Torah She'bal itself coming from Sinai is perfectly sound. If you accept the idea that "something" was given at Sinai, you can accept that it was also accompanied with the command that this "something" could be interpreted and expounded. So, the concept itself is sound.
What scholarship does challenge, not to say eviscerate, is the idea that every halacha contained in the Mishna and Gemara came down from Sinai.
Sure, it all depends what you mean. If you mean "the interpretations of laws" then it is sound. Laws often have an implied and understood meaning originally intended. If you mean 'torah' in an expansive sense, in the way that our forefathers knew to call their Torah 'Orayta,' while we mistakenly call it 'Book' (Bible), then yes, it is perfectly sound to speak of 'torah' that is written and 'torah' which isn't. But this is certainly a far cry from the way the understanding of TSHBP crystallized over the years and perhaps a far cry from how it was understood by those who, as far as we know, first spoke of TSHBP.
arrggh, how did we get into talking about TSHBP? :)
Because we're Jews and that's Judaism! We can get back to tzitzis checking frum academic Jewish scholars if you like.
Because we're Jews and that's Judaism! We can get back to tzitzis checking frum academic Jewish scholars if you like.
Well, I had this great insight to share with you regarding TSHBP that I thought about after reading a National Geographic. But I don't have it infront of me, so we may have to go back to the tzitzis checking :)
Share it when you find it. :)
But this is certainly a far cry from the way the understanding of TSHBP crystallized over the years
Interesting way to put it. I was thinking of a post Gil put up regarding the death of Stalin which alot of Jews believe to be on Purim, when in fact, it wasen't. After many years, this view is already "crystallized" within the psyche of the people till its accepted. Now, its not based on all faslehoods since Gil mentions he collapsed on Purim but died a few days later.
This view can perhaps be taken into use when dealing with TSHBP; the interpretations of what it is and how it was passed down.
"I think it might be fair to say there is a realm of *Orthodox* academic scholarship, that, while it may not pass the Lakewood smell test, is still Orthodoxish. For example, Prof. Schiffman's work is largely dedicated to showing how rabbinic Judaism was *not* a creation of the rabbis in the 1st century CE and also with trying to align rabbinic literature with the facts and history of those centuries. Clearly he is regarded as a sound scholar, even if all of his conclusions are not necessarily adopted as the mainstream consensus."
That's becuase the others manage to steer clear of controversial areas. You would know better; does anyone come to mind who isn't a linguist/"eybushitz vs. emden controversy/some other relatively non-sensitive topic expert?
"BTW I believe he is *not* FFB. I think he was raised in the Conservative movement."
I won't tell them you said that.
Obviously higher criticsm is out (well, not entirely; Jon Levenson is ostensibly Orthodox and a major critic of higher criticism all while evidently accepting many of its assumptions and tenets).
But I meant people like Schiffman and Barry Levy. They are few and mostly in Israel but they exist (and of course neither is *directly* a Bible scholar in that other sense, and certainly neither are archaeologists). Again, read the Bernstein article.
>>I won't tell them you said that.
If it isn't true then I will edit out that comment. I think it is true though.
That's becuase the others manage to steer clear of controversial areas. You would know better; does anyone come to mind who isn't a linguist/"eybushitz vs. emden controversy/some other relatively non-sensitive topic expert?
Are you saying that the linguistics isen't a sensitive topic?
It would be in Lakewood, but its like firecrackers compared to the landmines involved in being a real Bible scholar in a university. Schiffman deals with Dead Sea Scrolls. Barry Levy and Moshe Bernstein deal with Targums. Closer to the minefield, but they can be skillfully navigated. Other Orthodox Bible scholars just apparently accept the tenets of their field, like James Kugel, but they are privately Orthodox.
S.
What are your thoughts on James Kugel. He gave a lecture in a shul I went regarding how the original Jews viewed God. ie. when it said messengers came to Abraham or wrestled with God, they literally understood it as God. Only later did this different approach arise to see God in a much more abstract way.
I am not so familiar with him, but I have read a little. I think his work showing the source and similarities between midrash aggadah and the apocryphal books is interesting. It shows that many of these things were indeed hoary traditions by the time the rabbis were recounting them.
I think the sentiments he expressed in his lecture would be fine in some Orthodox circles while in others the idea that Jews understood and understand God differently throughout the ages would be incomprehensible at best and unbelief at worst.
"
>>I won't tell them you said that.
If it isn't true then I will edit out that comment. I think it is true though."
Sorry, I meant I won't tell the old-time conservatives that they're not frum.
In modern usage frum means Orthodox (and prax, not just shul membership), so I don't feel unjustified to use it.
While Jon Levenson is an halakhic Jew, I do not believe he claims to be Orthodox. I may be wrong.
As for Jim Kugel, in his Intro to Judaism, loosely modeled on the Kuzari, he has his spokesman say that, despite all that the biblical critics say, the Torah was given to Moses on Sinai.
I wrote you late last night. How about a response or at least a receipt?
(by email not here)
Thanks
The revelation at Sinai is the basis of Judaism. If you accept that and follow halacha, everything else is debatable.
Everyone's focused on his line about Exodus, but this line is far more telling:
"Do I believe that God communicated some kind of way of life to someone that became Judaism?"
Pay attention to his words.
First there's "some kind of." He also used this dodge to in his "some kind of Exodus" answer. It allows him to use the more maximal word and cut it down to believable size less obviously.
Second there's "way of life." Notice that it's not a text that was the revelation! He's not even pulling the typical M"O" academic's slippery shtick of saying what was given was Torah--without the word THE preceding it. No, he's clear: way of life.
Third there's "to someone." Notice how he's not naming names! In particular the name "Moses." He believes there was a revelation "to someone."
Finally there's "that became Judaism." Notice the explicit repudiation of Torah she baal peh miSinai. The contents of the revelation BECAME Judaism--meaning Judaism was not the revelation. The way of life that was revealed changed into Judaism over time.
In summary, Schiffman believes that God communicated: "some kind of " "way of life" "to someone" "that became Judaism." If he's Orthodox, I'll eat his big fluffy black yarmulke.
There's a guy named 'Kugel'? Does he have a student named 'Cholent'?
Sorry, couldn't resist! :)
Which one went crazy?
Which one became a heretic?
Which one died?
And which one exited unscathed?
Edit: Apparently this topic is not poised to be the hottest thing since sliced Slifkin.
well, we are due for contraversy. I say we MAKE it a big deal
>Edit: Apparently this topic is not poised to be the hottest thing since sliced Slifkin.
Just curious, what made you say that?
(I agree btw, just wondering what caused you to say this.)
Why is it a surprise to anyone one that this is not going to be a big deal?
To the MO this is ho-hum stuff, and as far as the UO knows about this,(I suspect most Yeshiva guys will react- "Who?"), they will write it off as another 'apikorseshe' professor.
Also, the Slifkin affair was stoked by the fact that many felt that there was a terrible injustice done to him.
It was kept alive by partisans on both sides, who had a stake in keeping the machlokes alive. (*cough* Gil *cough*)
None of that applies here.
Why did you think that it would be big deal, S.?
It was a joke. I just thought it was a snappy line. The fact that all of a sudden five or six blogs were talking about this one thing, a faith/ losing faith related issue was something which hadn't happened in a while.
BTW, S., are we going to see a post on Acedemic Talmud anytime soon?
There's an idea.
Any particular aspect that you think might be interesting? Source criticism? Philology? The clash between it and the way Talmud is studied in yeshivos?
"To the MO this is ho-hum stuff". I am surprised to hear that. Is it really ok to allergorize any part of the chumash that doesn't fit into your worldview? Adam, mabul, Exodus, etc. Where does it end? Of course we don't take the chumash literally, but only as far as what we have a mesorah for. If not for the mesorah, an eye for an eye would be literal too! To allerogize part of chumash, you need a solid basis somewhere in torah sh'baal peh, not in a science book.
Impressionistic: I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. I think that Adam and the Mabbul would indeed raise little eyebrows, but the times and happenigns of the Avot would. Certainly anything past that, except perhaps the literal number 600,000 (or 2 million). Yes, in some corners you can probably do it too, but you're already heading out into deep (and perhaps hot) water once you hit Avraham.
But in general MO are less concerned with beliefs, so long as you're halakhically observant (in an Orthodox fashion) things like allegorizing are not going to set off fire alarms as much. But don't forget, Rabbi Schubert Spero did get flak for allegorizing the mabbul in Tradition. But the point is, it was flak. He wasn't burned in effigy.
You'd be surprised how many MO Jews accept tenets of Bible criticism--and perhaps surprised by how many more don't.
Hyrax - you wrote earlier of a lecture where P. Kugel ( now that's funny!) spoke of a more modern way to understand that messengers came to Abraham or wrestled with God. Would you elaborate a bit? Why should messengers be interpreted allegorically? And did you mean wrestling with an angel?
The clash between it and the way Talmud is studied in yeshivos?
Yes. You mentioned that you might do one, when Gil said that he was surprised that anyone would have a problem with it.
I'd like to see you do a comprehensive post on it.
David Farkas
I will try my best. It was a while ago. Basically, his idea is there are two models of how the Hebrews/Jews looked and understood God. The first model is that Jews, up until probably somewhere around 2nd temple era understood God being able to communicate to man by being in a form of man. So in the Torah, when you have stories of "messengers" or fighting an "angel" everyone including the forefathers believed this to be god. That is infact why they named areas where this "vision" occured such as Pnei-El. Its because Jacob literally understood this engagment as one of him vs. God himself. This idea is carried on in Neveim where you got discriptions of God in human form.
The second model, in which we live now, (starting about 2nd temple time) is one of an abstract God. We now understand all those psukim as metaphors, or, we call them "angels." No now see hidden mystical meanings in Ezekiels visions instead of how it was originally understood.
His claim is basically Rambam put the last nail in the coffin to the first model. Can there possibly be a third model? Who nows.
I have tried my best in explaining his idea. If anything seems wrong, please take it as my mistake and not mine. You can check out his book "The God of Old." I believe that is where he discusses this.
If anything seems wrong, please take it as my mistake and not mine
Sorry, that should read "...and not HIS"
There is no question that Schiffman, Eichler and the rest of them do not believe the Purim story is historical.
Anyone who took Kugel's class at Harvard knows that he is a complete believer in the Higher Criticism. The frum guys used to call it apikorsus 101. In his modern day Kuzari all he says is that this is a topic for more advanced students, He could never give the Harvard course at Bar Ilan. He is a very frum guy but a complete believer in the DH, and is totally open about this.
SM
Has he written anything about his beleifs in DH?
The whole idea of saying "Ploni believes X so he can't be Orthodox" is silly. Rambam himself held many beliefs that are decidedly unOrthodox. So did many of the greatest talmidei chachamim in history. You have to define Orthodox as someone who affiliates with the Orthodox community.
Right, but no one is saying the Rambam was Orthodox. Orthodoxy is, for one, a modern category. For another, even if one means the technical sense of orthodoxy (in which case it doesn't deserve to be capitalized),relative to the prevailing orthodoxy, then a case can be made that the Rambam's views were not in opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy of his time considering that he was the unquestioned rav u-manhig for an internation Jewry in his time, critics notwithstanding, especially if we consider the fate of those whose views were contra the prevailing orthodoxy of that time, the views of the Karaites. Even Raavad and other critics clearly did not consider the Rambam to be unorthodox in that sense.
So, the Rambam wasn't Orthodox but perhaps he was orthodox. Even if not, no one was Orthodox, so it doesn't matter.
And right now we're discussing what being Orthodox means.
I would point out that the Anonymous who has been posting "eat my fluffy black yarmulke" on all of these threads is taking Schiffman out of context, from his responses to *Dever the Sorta Reform Guy* and using his critiques of Dever as statements of his own personal hashkafot.
For more on this theme, see here.
A topic I would like to see discussed is how to immunize Orthodoxy from the discoveries/skepticism of biblical criticism.How can one reach a point where it would make sense to say YES to traditional ideas of TSBP and YES to the most plausible critical reconstruction.
Maybe there ought to be a distiction between the bible that is a historical,empirical book, and the metaphysical entity called Torah or Oreita or whatever logos place holder you want where we take a literalist approach. The philosophical justification would either be a Kantian noumenal/phenomenal distinction or perhaps the idea of multiple true descriptions of some incohate substratum, where we choose the 'correct' way of talking depending on which is most useful in a particular context.
In any event I applaud the sane and measured discussion of a very difficult topic, It is as if everyone has some distance from the issues.
>A topic I would like to see discussed is how to immunize Orthodoxy from the discoveries/skepticism of biblical criticism.How can one reach a point where it would make sense to say YES to traditional ideas of TSBP and YES to the most plausible critical reconstruction.
I once posted about that.
http://onthemainline.blogspot.co...with-
bible.html
The best I was able to conclude is that an alternate form of Bible interpretation needs to emerge (and perhaps it already has) and be promulgated.
However, the fact is that in the final analysis many people instinctively recoil from anything that seems postmodern, or just won't grasp how you can be historical-critical in your head and frum in your heart. For many people the question is the same as asked by R. Hirsch:
"God spoke to Moses" is a simple supranatural fact just as one man speaks to another."
And if you must say "yes, but..." or "it's not so simple" they will think you are fooling yourself, "making it up" or just plain wrong. To many people it must be "And God spoke to Moses" in the simple sense or else its all unjustified.
To many people it must be "And God spoke to Moses" in the simple sense or else its all unjustified.
And they would probably be justified in thinking that. Unless what you mean is, "yes, they did speak, but...."
Maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe its like the matter of how the United States came to be. Most good Americans are good Americans whether or not they have a specific kind of knowledge of and relationship with US history.
Maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe its like the matter of how the United States came to be. Most good Americans are good Americans whether or not they have a specific kind of knowledge of and relationship with US history.
I would say it is even more than that. They are good Americans to the extent that they reflect, defend, and uphold those values and themes which are the very foundational spirit of the USA.
The classic example of this is the classic movie "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." The prototype of the American is one who upholds the values irrespective of his intimate knowledge of their historical roots and development.
In the system of Rav Kook, the level to which a person is representative of his group is to be understood as the level to which the individual attaches himself to the "Divine idea" (the foundational metaphysical idea which separates his group from other groups). This is treated in great detail in the essay "To the process of ideas in Israel" printed in all post 60s editions of Orot.
I read your 2006 post on bible criticism. I want to make one small pt. The whole force of the criticism is that each bit of evidence may not be conclusive, but multiplied thousands of times chapter by chapter, sentence by sentence from beraishit to the end of divrei hayamim and the evidence is overwhelming. The critics can be wrong 25% of the time and still have more than enough evidence.
Someone who says "I can show its nonsense but I don't have the time. Look at the Rav's remarks in ..." is far worse than someone who says " Leave me alone, all the books are
apikorsus." Both are in denial, but the first is also a liar.
Absolutely, which is why I said (or meant) that one little bit on the first two chapters isn't a response, it's a hint.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
