"Three of the four scholars, including Koppel, are religious Jews who subscribe in some form to the belief that the Torah was dictated to Moses in its entirety by a single author: God."
That may be the most interesting part. What were they thinking?
Actually, it doesn't prove anything more than what was proven before. All its doing (according to the article) is the same work the scholars have been doing, but faster now.
1. From the article referenced in XGH's post: "What the algorithm won't answer, say the researchers who created it, is the question of whether the Bible is human or divine."
2. From the NY Times: "A computer analysis of the Old Testament Book of Genesis has yielded evidence to support a common Christian and Jewish religious belief that the work was written by one author. Yehuda T. Radday, professor emeritus of biblical studies at the Technion, Israel's institute of technology in Haifa, announced [in 1981] that a five-year linguistic analysis of the book's 20,000 words indicated an 82 percent probability that it was written by one author. This contradicts the ''documentary hypothesis,'' which has been accepted by many biblical scholars since the early 19th century, when Julius Wellhausen, a German Protestant theologian, said variations in the style of the first of the five Books of Moses showed that Genesis was a compilation of documents written by two or three authors. "
1. 3 of the 4 researchers, according to said article, are frum. The question is if we find their explanation that these threads simply indicate God using different styles convincing. I don't. 2. As for Radday's stuff, cf. Richard Elliott Friedman's "Non-Arguments Concerning the Documentary Hypothesis" in Texts, Temples, and Traditions, particularly pp. 92-101.
"The question is if we find their explanation that these threads simply indicate God using different styles convincing. I don't. "
Why is it inconceivable that God could reveal his will to more than one prophet (accounting for the different "styles")and thus create the Torah? Where is the logic in saying that if there were multiple authors, it must not be divine? Such an assertion, espoused by many super-frummies and skeptics, is a puzzlement.
RE Moshe: I didn't say that if there are multiple authors, it must not be divine. I was referring to the alleged opinion of the researchers (especially relevant since you mentioned Radday's opinion on the supposed singular authorship of Genesis) that God simply was using different styles when he communicated to Moses. That's Mordechai Breuer's argument and I don't find it convincing.
The findings of biblical criticism regarding multiple authorship which are agreed upon go against the universal mesorah, how all the rabbis maintained the Jews must have gotten 99% of the book. I agree with Marc Shapiro when he said, "I think Orthodoxy requres that the bulk of the Torah, and in particular the mitzvot, is of Mosaic authorship."
Now after you've accepted the data that it's not of Mosaic authorship, you can indeed still believe it's from God, but IMHO the multiple authorship's just another nail in the coffin, after we've seen how the Bible's influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as how incontrovertibly unethical some pesukim are (I'm not gonna kill my gay friends I'm afraid).
"Those for whom it is a matter of faith that the Pentateuch is not a composition of multiple writers can view the distinction investigated here as that of multiple styles," they said.
In other words, there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.
Evidence for multiple styles/authors supports modern scholarship and increases the burden that the believer has to bear in their reinterpretation of the data.
A program designed to find multiple authors will unsurprisingly do so. It is nevertheless very interesting to see exactly how it divides everything up and how this compares with previos assumptions.
This post has a bizarre title. Surely nobody denies that the Bible has multiple authors: the point in dispute is whether the Torah has multiple authors.
"I agree with Marc Shapiro when he said, "I think Orthodoxy requres that the bulk of the Torah, and in particular the mitzvot, is of Mosaic authorship"
Where did he say that? To my recollection, such a statement would go against the thrust of his book on the topic.
Also, please summarize Friedman's arguments . I don't have the book.
Finally, important strands of the tradition do not require a belief that the Torah is merely transcription of Divine dictation. If so, the whole Torah could have been inscribed on stone, as the Dibros were. "Dibrah HaTorah B'lshon bnei Adam". God speaks, and a prophet writes according to the best of the prophets understanding. This answers ksil's question, too. I have commented in detail on this in recent threads here,for those interested, but do not have time now to elaborate further.
BTW, I do not find the multiple voices argument persuasive either. Sounds to me like the literary equivalent of the "God planted dinosaur bones to test us" argument re evolution. I don't believe that God plays tricks like that.
Re killing homosexuals, that's a red herring and you know it. The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter, impossible to carry out. The edict is merely in terrorem.
"I have commented in detail on this in recent threads here,for those interested, but do not have time now to elaborate further"
why does the question of "who wrote this book" require elaboration?
"The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter impossible to carry out"
Yea, NOW! what about in the old days - plenty of death and destruction to go around....its just our morality has evolved and we recognize now that it is ridiculous to kill people for these (many many many) reason. (sick book if you ask me)
Where did he say that? To my recollection, such a statement would go against the thrust of his book on the topic. http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=2595
Also, please summarize Friedman's arguments . I don't have the book. Sorry, a bit too busy these days to summarize the arguments...you can read this section of the book at Google Books though.
Re killing homosexuals, that's a red herring and you know it. The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter, impossible to carry out. The edict is merely in terrorem. I wasn't referring to the more modern rabbinic Judaism, but the Biblical value...In any event, for God to write such a thing is to enshrine it for billions of religious people as a principle; in principle, they ought to be killed. I disagree; I like show tunes too much.
One can always expect you to come out of the woodwork after an absence of days or weeks in order to "expose" the Frumster's and apologists who believe in nonsense against all scientific evidence.
I would ask you to consider the following. Moishe Koppel ran the team that developed the algorithm that underlies this story. He also is a practicing Orthodox Jew. Obviously he is a scientist, obviously he is smart. How and why is he involved in this? Maybe the idea of faith is not so black and white as you insist on making it. Maybe knocking down an easy straw man should not be your sole reason for coming out of hiding.
You might enjoy a series of lectures by Rabbi Cardozo entitled "Is Heresy Jewish?".
" BTW, I do not find the multiple voices argument persuasive either. Sounds to me like the literary equivalent of the "God planted dinosaur bones to test us" argument re evolution. I don't believe that God plays tricks like that.
Re killing homosexuals, that's a red herring and you know it. The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter, impossible to carry out. The edict is merely in terrorem. "
I don't understand. You think God doesn't play tricks but still thinks he tells you to kill people thinking it won't really happen?
>Re killing homosexuals, that's a red herring and you know it. The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter, impossible to carry out. The edict is merely in terrorem.
I don't understand this. God, in principle, demands that something unbelievably unethical be done. The excuse that makes it better is, "Don't worry, we won't actually have to do it nowadays!" How on Earth is that better? Isn't that just showing that the principles are, in fact, abhorrent? If God wrote a moral book, would you have to be glad you don't have to carry it out?
Amazing, these guys made the news. I read about some of their papers a few months back. I was very hopefull because the field is amazing. Unfortuneatly, this work they did was a great advance in Computer science, but was not an advance in Biblical knowledge.
By that I mean the following. What they did here, was use the terms and phrases and linguistic styles as defined by Wellhausen. They then told the computer to find those different styles, and report back with which sections were created by who. The computer came back with a 90% success rate. The importance of this is being able to find writing styles among students and detect plagiarism, even if a thesaurus is used. It has other great uses as well, but the program itself, as its currently written, can not detect single or multiple authorship.
This is the key paragraph in the article, the paragraph you must read over and over again, and what is so awesome and amazing about computational linguistics. This paragraph... READ IT till you understand what it means.
"Over the past decade, computer programs have increasingly been assisting Bible scholars in searching and comparing texts, but the novelty of the new software seems to be in **its ability to take criteria developed by scholars*** and apply them through a technological tool more powerful in many respects than the human mind, Segal said."
Because what these guys have done is amazing, and it should not be clouded with the politics of biblical authorship, I share this link. You can read many of their amazing discoveries which lead to this press release here:
“In other words, there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.”
OK, conceding this, .... but God (at least the way we define Him) does not speak in contradictory voices, or in an ignorant, or fictional or unjust voice.
I think that Shapiro meant that, de facto, the predominate view within Orthodoxy today total or near total Mosaic authorship. He is not saying that such belief SHOULD be required. Indeed, elsewhere in the interview he states “I don’t see why you chuck Orthodoxy because of the documentary hypothesis? ... if I were to be convinced that it is true, my life would be the same ...I don’t think Judaism rises or falls on that...."
BP, Max and JG,
Re "killing homosexuals"-- Absent a divine revelation, there would be no objective basis for morality. The very reason the idea seems troubling to you is because western civilization has adopted the Torah's view as to the sacredness of human life.
"You think God doesn't play tricks but still thinks he tells you to kill people thinking it won't really happen?"
An in terrorem edict is hardly a "trick". It's a hyperbolic means of expressing a value. I might add that it is an objective fact that, if the Torah's ideal of heterosexual monogamy were adhered to universally, millions of lives lost to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases would have been spared. Apparently, to violate the Torah's norms here does indeed invite death, albeit not by a court of law. In this instance,as in many others, the Torah is a "tree of life to all who adhere to it".
Moshe, millions of lives would have been saved throughout history if Jews would have converted to other faiths in accordance with the wishes of their tormentors.
He is not saying that such belief SHOULD be required. I didn't write that he's saying that. What he's saying is that (as of now) it's unacceptable by Orthodoxy for a Jew to affirm that tenet of biblical criticism. In context: "I’m not a theologian but I will say that you are certainly within the bounds of Orthodoxy to affirm more than one author for the Torah. However, I think Orthodoxy requres that the bulk of the Torah, and in particular the mitzvot, is of Mosaic authorship."
Absent a divine revelation, there would be no objective basis for morality. This argument has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. Suffice it to say I side with its opponents.
I might add that it is an objective fact that, if the Torah's ideal of heterosexual monogamy were adhered to universally, millions of lives lost to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases would have been spared...In this instance,as in many others, the Torah is a "tree of life to all who adhere to it". But the Torah does sanction polygamy (I don't really find Telushkin's arguments that it saw polygamy as non-ideal as convincing, but admittedly, I haven't looked into this too deeply) and Biblical figures were polygamous.
>The very reason the idea seems troubling to you is because western civilization has adopted the Torah's view as to the sacredness of human life.
And yet, Asian societies espousing Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism exhibit moral philosophy and behavior. Beyond this, what BP said.
>It's a hyperbolic means of expressing a value.
And yet, the Torah records death sentences performed for other acts for which the Torah prescribes death. But this death sentence was only hyperbole?
>Apparently, to violate the Torah's norms here does indeed invite death, albeit not by a court of law.
For centuries, drinking available water "invited" cholera and death for millions.
Implying that gay people have "invited" AIDs upon themselves by being gay and "violating the Torah's norms"...I'd give that an 8.5 out of 10 on the schmuck-o-meter.
"millions of lives would have been saved throughout history if Jews would have converted to other faiths in accordance with the wishes of their tormentors."
Dying for a noble cause is different than, and superior to, dying from the known danger of a disease b/c you couldn't control your carnal lusts.
BP,
"But the Torah does sanction polygamy"
Not as an ideal. See e.g., parshas bereishis. And it requires fidelity, even w/i polygamy.
JG,
"For centuries, drinking available water "invited" cholera and death for millions. "
Perhaps that's why chazal lauded wine.
"And yet, the Torah records death sentences performed for other acts for which the Torah prescribes death."
What, the m'kashes eitzim? That was an act of political rebellion,disguised as a ritual violation, as can be seen from its proximity in the text to the Korach and the m'raglim. The seditious nature of the act was the reason for the execution. Treason carries the death penalty to this day in the US.
"Implying that gay people have "invited" AIDs upon themselves by being gay and "violating the Torah's norms...schmuck-o-meter"
No, I merely stated an objective fact--one that you apparently find unpleasant--and are unable to respond to, except by hurling meaningless invective.
Not as an ideal. See e.g., parshas bereishis. We might be using the word "ideal" differently. If by "ideal," you mean the sort of ideal the Torah establishes vegetarianism as, I agree with you. But as a practical ideal for people living in the world like Abraham or Jacob, who by you apparently didn't live in lechatchila conditions, I haven't seen the case properly established.
since the Torah is multiple authored and these authored likely had differing haskofot, the author(s) of the (2) genesis account of mankind's creation may have believed in a one man-one woman view of marriage while reality was otherwise.
>That was an act of political rebellion,disguised as a ritual violation
Cute.
"32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it had not been declared what should be done to him. {S} 35 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.' 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the LORD commanded Moses."
>No, I merely stated an objective fact
To the end of implying that a victim of illness is morally responsible for their own tragic circumstances. ("What, it's an objective fact: if she hadn't been dressed that way, he might not have attacked her." "What, it's an objective fact: if Ashkenazi Jews hadn't been so intent on remaining pure-blooded, they might have had lower incidence of Tay-Sachs.") A schmucky thing to do, in my book. Not to mention the numbers of heterosexual men and women who have been afflicted by AIDs in Africa.
"32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks upon the sabbath day.
Gadfly,
You are forgetting two important words in the hebrew "B'yad rama." It implies a flagrant and very purposeful PUBLIC desecration of the sabbat. In fact, a sort of "I will stick it to God" sort of rebellion.
And if I remember, the chapter before that warns if someone violates "B'yad rama"
"To the end of implying that a victim of illness is morally responsible for their own tragic circumstances..."
Yes, if a person, in the face of a clear and known health risk, chooses to engage in risky conduct, and the risk materializes, he is morally responsible. I would say the same thing about a smoker who contracts lung cancer. As for the heterosexual Africans, if they had adhered to the Torah's standard of sexual morality, they would not be diseased either. (Though, from what I understand of that situation, I would distinguish between the men who have relations with frequent partners, and the wives who are monogamous. The latter are clearly victims, and are not morally culpable.
"A schmucky thing to do, in my book. Not to mention the numbers of heterosexual men and women who have been afflicted by AIDs in Africa. "
Forget that. Imaging all the Jews who could have been saved from cystic fibrosis and tay-sacs and canavans and gaucher and fanconi's anemia, etc. etc. if they had only married out. I don't think Moshe's hypotheses are to be taken seriously.
"cystic fibrosis and tay-sacs and canavans and gaucher and fanconi's anemia"
Hardly comparable. Even if you couldn't get screened, as was once the case, there is a positive good involved in having children, which outweighs the risk. In contrast, there is no positive good involved in the risky behavior that I referred to, other than the instant but temporary gratification of animalistic urges.
And now, of course, one can, and should, get screened for these diseases b/f having children.
It is interesting to see how skeptics advance the most absurd propositions when a liberal icon is at stake. It sort of reminds me of the way super-frummies [like Avi Shafran in XGH's next post] do the same thing for their sacred cows. I guess that dogmatic thought is not the sole province of the religious.
> there is a positive good involved in having children, which outweighs the risk. In contrast, there is no positive good involved in the risky behavior that I referred to, other than the instant but temporary gratification of animalistic urges.
Alternatively, one scenario involves unnecessary mating practices stemming from misguided belief in a false 3,000 year old myth, whereas the other involves the basic human need for emotional and physical intimacy with others.
Posts
37 comments:
"Three of the four scholars, including Koppel, are religious Jews who subscribe in some form to the belief that the Torah was dictated to Moses in its entirety by a single author: God."
That may be the most interesting part. What were they thinking?
Actually, it doesn't prove anything more than what was proven before. All its doing (according to the article) is the same work the scholars have been doing, but faster now.
1. From the article referenced in XGH's post: "What the algorithm won't answer, say the researchers who created it, is the question of whether the Bible is human or divine."
2. From the NY Times: "A computer analysis of the Old Testament Book of Genesis has yielded evidence to support a common Christian and Jewish religious belief that the work was written by one author. Yehuda T. Radday, professor emeritus of biblical studies at the Technion, Israel's institute of technology in Haifa, announced [in 1981] that a five-year linguistic analysis of the book's 20,000 words indicated an 82 percent probability that it was written by one author. This contradicts the ''documentary hypothesis,'' which has been accepted by many biblical scholars since the early 19th century, when Julius Wellhausen, a German Protestant theologian, said variations in the style of the first of the five Books of Moses showed that Genesis was a compilation of documents written by two or three authors. "
Pick your program.
RE Moshe:
1. 3 of the 4 researchers, according to said article, are frum. The question is if we find their explanation that these threads simply indicate God using different styles convincing. I don't.
2. As for Radday's stuff, cf. Richard Elliott Friedman's "Non-Arguments Concerning the Documentary Hypothesis" in Texts, Temples, and Traditions, particularly pp. 92-101.
BP,
"The question is if we find their explanation that these threads simply indicate God using different styles convincing. I don't. "
Why is it inconceivable that God could reveal his will to more than one prophet (accounting for the different "styles")and thus create the Torah? Where is the logic in saying that if there were multiple authors, it must not be divine? Such an assertion, espoused by many super-frummies and skeptics, is a puzzlement.
RE Moshe:
I didn't say that if there are multiple authors, it must not be divine. I was referring to the alleged opinion of the researchers (especially relevant since you mentioned Radday's opinion on the supposed singular authorship of Genesis) that God simply was using different styles when he communicated to Moses. That's Mordechai Breuer's argument and I don't find it convincing.
The findings of biblical criticism regarding multiple authorship which are agreed upon go against the universal mesorah, how all the rabbis maintained the Jews must have gotten 99% of the book. I agree with Marc Shapiro when he said, "I think Orthodoxy requres that the bulk of the Torah, and in particular the mitzvot, is of Mosaic authorship."
Now after you've accepted the data that it's not of Mosaic authorship, you can indeed still believe it's from God, but IMHO the multiple authorship's just another nail in the coffin, after we've seen how the Bible's influenced by the Epic of Gilgamesh, as well as how incontrovertibly unethical some pesukim are (I'm not gonna kill my gay friends I'm afraid).
Moshe, whats the difference between a book that was written by god and a book that is "divine"??
The article concludes
"Those for whom it is a matter of faith that the Pentateuch is not a composition of multiple writers can view the distinction investigated here as that of multiple styles," they said.
In other words, there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.
Exactly what I've always been saying.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/12/documentary-hypothesis-critique.html
Evidence for multiple styles/authors supports modern scholarship and increases the burden that the believer has to bear in their reinterpretation of the data.
A program designed to find multiple authors will unsurprisingly do so.
It is nevertheless very interesting to see exactly how it divides everything up and how this compares with previos assumptions.
This post has a bizarre title. Surely nobody denies that the Bible has multiple authors: the point in dispute is whether the Torah has multiple authors.
BP,
"I agree with Marc Shapiro when he said, "I think Orthodoxy requres that the bulk of the Torah, and in particular the mitzvot, is of Mosaic authorship"
Where did he say that? To my recollection, such a statement would go against the thrust of his book on the topic.
Also, please summarize Friedman's arguments . I don't have the book.
Finally, important strands of the tradition do not require a belief that the Torah is merely transcription of Divine dictation. If so, the whole Torah could have been inscribed on stone, as the Dibros were. "Dibrah HaTorah B'lshon bnei Adam". God speaks, and a prophet writes according to the best of the prophets understanding. This answers ksil's question, too. I have commented in detail on this in recent threads here,for those interested, but do not have time now to elaborate further.
BTW, I do not find the multiple voices argument persuasive either. Sounds to me like the literary equivalent of the "God planted dinosaur bones to test us" argument re evolution. I don't believe that God plays tricks like that.
Re killing homosexuals, that's a red herring and you know it. The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter, impossible to carry out. The edict is merely in terrorem.
"I have commented in detail on this in recent threads here,for those interested, but do not have time now to elaborate further"
why does the question of "who wrote this book" require elaboration?
"The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter impossible to carry out"
Yea, NOW! what about in the old days - plenty of death and destruction to go around....its just our morality has evolved and we recognize now that it is ridiculous to kill people for these (many many many) reason. (sick book if you ask me)
Where did he say that? To my recollection, such a statement would go against the thrust of his book on the topic.
http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=2595
Also, please summarize Friedman's arguments . I don't have the book.
Sorry, a bit too busy these days to summarize the arguments...you can read this section of the book at Google Books though.
Re killing homosexuals, that's a red herring and you know it. The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter, impossible to carry out. The edict is merely in terrorem.
I wasn't referring to the more modern rabbinic Judaism, but the Biblical value...In any event, for God to write such a thing is to enshrine it for billions of religious people as a principle; in principle, they ought to be killed. I disagree; I like show tunes too much.
One can always expect you to come out of the woodwork after an absence of days or weeks in order to "expose" the Frumster's and apologists who believe in nonsense against all scientific evidence.
I would ask you to consider the following. Moishe Koppel ran the team that developed the algorithm that underlies this story. He also is a practicing Orthodox Jew. Obviously he is a scientist, obviously he is smart. How and why is he involved in this? Maybe the idea of faith is not so black and white as you insist on making it. Maybe knocking down an easy straw man should not be your sole reason for coming out of hiding.
You might enjoy a series of lectures by Rabbi Cardozo entitled "Is Heresy Jewish?".
Line below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t42CLPcDKLU&feature=view_all&list=PL711BA45AC1E7355F&index=0
"
BTW, I do not find the multiple voices argument persuasive either. Sounds to me like the literary equivalent of the "God planted dinosaur bones to test us" argument re evolution. I don't believe that God plays tricks like that.
Re killing homosexuals, that's a red herring and you know it. The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter, impossible to carry out. The edict is merely in terrorem. "
I don't understand. You think God doesn't play tricks but still thinks he tells you to kill people thinking it won't really happen?
>Re killing homosexuals, that's a red herring and you know it. The death penalty in Judaism is, as a practical matter, impossible to carry out. The edict is merely in terrorem.
I don't understand this. God, in principle, demands that something unbelievably unethical be done. The excuse that makes it better is, "Don't worry, we won't actually have to do it nowadays!" How on Earth is that better? Isn't that just showing that the principles are, in fact, abhorrent? If God wrote a moral book, would you have to be glad you don't have to carry it out?
Amazing, these guys made the news. I read about some of their papers a few months back. I was very hopefull because the field is amazing. Unfortuneatly, this work they did was a great advance in Computer science, but was not an advance in Biblical knowledge.
By that I mean the following. What they did here, was use the terms and phrases and linguistic styles as defined by Wellhausen. They then told the computer to find those different styles, and report back with which sections were created by who. The computer came back with a 90% success rate. The importance of this is being able to find writing styles among students and detect plagiarism, even if a thesaurus is used. It has other great uses as well, but the program itself, as its currently written, can not detect single or multiple authorship.
This is the key paragraph in the article, the paragraph you must read over and over again, and what is so awesome and amazing about computational linguistics. This paragraph... READ IT till you understand what it means.
"Over the past decade, computer programs have increasingly been assisting Bible scholars in searching and comparing texts, but the novelty of the new software seems to be in **its ability to take criteria developed by scholars*** and apply them through a technological tool more powerful in many respects than the human mind, Segal said."
I don't understand. If your belief is strong, no article or research is going to sway you. Why bother debating? Be happy in your secure faith.
Because what these guys have done is amazing, and it should not be clouded with the politics of biblical authorship, I share this link. You can read many of their amazing discoveries which lead to this press release here:
http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~akivan/Research.htm
“In other words, there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.”
OK, conceding this, .... but God (at least the way we define Him) does not speak in contradictory voices, or in an ignorant, or fictional or unjust voice.
BP,
"http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=2595"
I think that Shapiro meant that, de facto, the predominate view within Orthodoxy today total or near total Mosaic authorship. He is not saying that such belief SHOULD be required. Indeed, elsewhere in the interview he states
“I don’t see why you chuck Orthodoxy because of the documentary hypothesis? ... if I were to be convinced that it is true, my life would be the same ...I don’t think Judaism rises or falls on that...."
BP, Max and JG,
Re "killing homosexuals"-- Absent a divine revelation, there would be no objective basis for morality. The very reason the idea seems troubling to you is because western civilization has adopted the Torah's view as to the sacredness of human life.
"You think God doesn't play tricks but still thinks he tells you to kill people thinking it won't really happen?"
An in terrorem edict is hardly a "trick". It's a hyperbolic means of expressing a value. I might add that it is an objective fact that, if the Torah's ideal of heterosexual monogamy were adhered to universally, millions of lives lost to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases would have been spared. Apparently, to violate the Torah's norms here does indeed invite death, albeit not by a court of law. In this instance,as in many others, the Torah is a "tree of life to all who adhere to it".
Moshe, millions of lives would have been saved throughout history if Jews would have converted to other faiths in accordance with the wishes of their tormentors.
He is not saying that such belief SHOULD be required.
I didn't write that he's saying that. What he's saying is that (as of now) it's unacceptable by Orthodoxy for a Jew to affirm that tenet of biblical criticism. In context: "I’m not a theologian but I will say that you are certainly within the bounds of Orthodoxy to affirm more than one author for the Torah. However, I think Orthodoxy requres that the bulk of the Torah, and in particular the mitzvot, is of Mosaic authorship."
Absent a divine revelation, there would be no objective basis for morality.
This argument has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. Suffice it to say I side with its opponents.
I might add that it is an objective fact that, if the Torah's ideal of heterosexual monogamy were adhered to universally, millions of lives lost to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases would have been spared...In this instance,as in many others, the Torah is a "tree of life to all who adhere to it".
But the Torah does sanction polygamy (I don't really find Telushkin's arguments that it saw polygamy as non-ideal as convincing, but admittedly, I haven't looked into this too deeply) and Biblical figures were polygamous.
>The very reason the idea seems troubling to you is because western civilization has adopted the Torah's view as to the sacredness of human life.
And yet, Asian societies espousing Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism exhibit moral philosophy and behavior. Beyond this, what BP said.
>It's a hyperbolic means of expressing a value.
And yet, the Torah records death sentences performed for other acts for which the Torah prescribes death. But this death sentence was only hyperbole?
>Apparently, to violate the Torah's norms here does indeed invite death, albeit not by a court of law.
For centuries, drinking available water "invited" cholera and death for millions.
Implying that gay people have "invited" AIDs upon themselves by being gay and "violating the Torah's norms"...I'd give that an 8.5 out of 10 on the schmuck-o-meter.
Anon,
"millions of lives would have been saved throughout history if Jews would have converted to other faiths in accordance with the wishes of their tormentors."
Dying for a noble cause is different than, and superior to, dying from the known danger of a disease b/c you couldn't control your carnal lusts.
BP,
"But the Torah does sanction polygamy"
Not as an ideal. See e.g., parshas bereishis. And it requires fidelity, even w/i polygamy.
JG,
"For centuries, drinking available water "invited" cholera and death for millions. "
Perhaps that's why chazal lauded wine.
"And yet, the Torah records death sentences performed for other acts for which the Torah prescribes death."
What, the m'kashes eitzim? That was an act of political rebellion,disguised as a ritual violation, as can be seen from its proximity in the text to the Korach and the m'raglim. The seditious nature of the act was the reason for the execution. Treason carries the death penalty to this day in the US.
"Implying that gay people have "invited" AIDs upon themselves by being gay and "violating the Torah's norms...schmuck-o-meter"
No, I merely stated an objective fact--one that you apparently find unpleasant--and are unable to respond to, except by hurling meaningless invective.
Not as an ideal. See e.g., parshas bereishis.
We might be using the word "ideal" differently. If by "ideal," you mean the sort of ideal the Torah establishes vegetarianism as, I agree with you. But as a practical ideal for people living in the world like Abraham or Jacob, who by you apparently didn't live in lechatchila conditions, I haven't seen the case properly established.
since the Torah is multiple authored and these authored likely had differing haskofot, the author(s) of the (2) genesis account of mankind's creation may have believed in a one man-one woman view of marriage while reality was otherwise.
>Perhaps that's why chazal lauded wine.
Seriously?
>That was an act of political rebellion,disguised as a ritual violation
Cute.
"32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it had not been declared what should be done to him. {S} 35 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.' 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the LORD commanded Moses."
>No, I merely stated an objective fact
To the end of implying that a victim of illness is morally responsible for their own tragic circumstances. ("What, it's an objective fact: if she hadn't been dressed that way, he might not have attacked her." "What, it's an objective fact: if Ashkenazi Jews hadn't been so intent on remaining pure-blooded, they might have had lower incidence of Tay-Sachs.") A schmucky thing to do, in my book. Not to mention the numbers of heterosexual men and women who have been afflicted by AIDs in Africa.
>Cute.
"32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks upon the sabbath day.
Gadfly,
You are forgetting two important words in the hebrew "B'yad rama." It implies a flagrant and very purposeful PUBLIC desecration of the sabbat. In fact, a sort of "I will stick it to God" sort of rebellion.
And if I remember, the chapter before that warns if someone violates "B'yad rama"
JG,
"Seriously?"
You skeptics have no sense of humor.
"Cute"
Davar halomeid mei-inyano
"To the end of implying that a victim of illness is morally responsible for their own tragic circumstances..."
Yes, if a person, in the face of a clear and known health risk, chooses to engage in risky conduct, and the risk materializes, he is morally responsible. I would say the same thing about a smoker who contracts lung cancer. As for the heterosexual Africans, if they had adhered to the Torah's standard of sexual morality, they would not be diseased either. (Though, from what I understand of that situation, I would distinguish between the men who have relations with frequent partners, and the wives who are monogamous. The latter are clearly victims, and are not morally culpable.
"A schmucky thing to do, in my book. Not to mention the numbers of heterosexual men and women who have been afflicted by AIDs in Africa. "
Forget that. Imaging all the Jews who could have been saved from cystic fibrosis and tay-sacs and canavans and gaucher and fanconi's anemia, etc. etc. if they had only married out. I don't think Moshe's hypotheses are to be taken seriously.
"cystic fibrosis and tay-sacs and canavans and gaucher and fanconi's anemia"
Hardly comparable. Even if you couldn't get screened, as was once the case, there is a positive good involved in having children, which outweighs the risk. In contrast, there is no positive good involved in the risky behavior that I referred to, other than the instant but temporary gratification of animalistic urges.
And now, of course, one can, and should, get screened for these diseases b/f having children.
It is interesting to see how skeptics advance the most absurd propositions when a liberal icon is at stake. It sort of reminds me of the way super-frummies [like Avi Shafran in XGH's next post] do the same thing for their sacred cows. I guess that dogmatic thought is not the sole province of the religious.
> there is a positive good involved in having children, which outweighs the risk. In contrast, there is no positive good involved in the risky behavior that I referred to, other than the instant but temporary gratification of animalistic urges.
Alternatively, one scenario involves unnecessary mating practices stemming from misguided belief in a false 3,000 year old myth, whereas the other involves the basic human need for emotional and physical intimacy with others.
A new article by the main researcher reminds us that the title of your post is faulty:
http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2011/07/more-on-authoshop-algorithm.html
Post a Comment