"Larger than life challenges to Torah values can be met in two different ways. We can prudently retreat, placing the sanctity of what is most important to us ahead of all other needs and feelings. Alternatively, we can face these challenges with confidence and certainty that nothing can compete with Torah, that it can and will triumph over every meretricious substitute."
What about the third way? Admit to the possibility that you're wrong? Guess that's not an option in delusionland.
"Neither approach is more correct than the other."
LOL, yeah, especially when both approaches are completely wrong. Adlerstein quotes the AP article:
“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."
So its hard to tell who is saying what - did Koppel say that last line? Or is it the reporter summarizing?Either way, the article did NOT say what Koppel believes, seems to me the team was simply giving an 'out' so that the frummies wouldn't be on their case. But Adlerstein jumps on this with glee:
"In the space of a few lines, Moshe Koppel told the world three things. He told them that frum Jews still believe that the Torah was given by HKBH, even though that makes them part of a very small part of the world’s population.... He told them that, as a frum Jew, he has a way of looking at what seems to be evidence of multiple authorship, and interpreting it in an entirely different way, perfectly consistent with traditional belief."
But Koppel said no such thing, at least not in the article. Maybe Adlerstein is a buddy of Koppel and knows this from elsewhere? Could be. On the other hand, maybe Koppel is an MO faker like so many others, and actually does believe in the DH. He certainly wouldn't be the first ostensibly frum professor (or Rabbi) to be a faker like that. I could name 5 right off the top of my head right now (relax people, I'm not going to out you).
Either way, the quote is quite stupid anyways.
"There's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices."
Actually, there are two good reasons:
1. It's retarded, especially when the voices are all mixed up.
2. Chazal, rishonim and acharonim, the greatest experts on all Torah, never ever said that the Torah was written in different 'voices'. Sure, they created explanations for the more obvious flaws, but a 'different voices' theory isn't part of the mesorah and never was. Clearly it's just an invented excuse of an answer for those people who realize that the DH, BC or MA isn't going away.
The 'different voices' apologetic used to be only used by quirky individuals. Mainstream types like Gil lean more towards showing unity of the text. Is 'different voices' the new mainstream apologetic for the DH?
Posts
54 comments:
I hate to criticize, but we special needs parents don't like it when you use the word retarded; that's our own special privilege.
As for the "different voices" shtick - it actually makes the whole idea of the mixed up text sound very modern, like a chic literary novel. They didn't have chic literary novels in the time of Chazal.
> He told them that frum Jews still believe that the Torah was given by HKBH, even though that makes them part of a very small part of the world’s population....
What?! There are billions of Christians and Muslims who believe that the Chumash was given to Moshe at Har Sinia.
> He told them that, as a frum Jew, he has a way of looking at what seems to be evidence of multiple authorship, and interpreting it in an entirely different way, perfectly consistent with traditional belief."
And that’s a good thing? Making stuff up so that you can keep your beliefs intact is NOT a virtue.
> There's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.
Well, sure, God can do anything. But just like the Omphalos hypothesis, the obvious question is, why would God do that? Why would He create a situation where He must be lying either in his written word or in the physical reality He created/the appearance of multiple authors with multiple agendas?
G3, glad you brought up the christians and muslim....whats your typical answer to that?
From the Gemora, Brachos 3b: It is written: 'About midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt.' [Exodus 11:4] Why 'about midnight'? Shall we say that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him [Moses}: 'About midnight'? Can there be any doubt [as to the precise hour in question] in the mind of God? Hence we must say that God told him 'at midnight', and he [Moses]came and said: 'About midnight'.
In other words, to believe that the Torah constitutes divine revelation is not to say that the Torah is merely a transcript of Divine speech, faithfully transcribed by Moshe Rabeinu in the manner of a court stenographer. (And/or by Joshua and/or by others, depending on how you hold).
Rather, God spoke and Moshe Rabbeinu (and/or Joshua and/or others, depending on how you hold) wrote down what he perceived, according to his own understanding. This interpretation explains many perplexities. It also provides a path for one who accepts the findings of DH to maintain an unwavering commitment to observance of the mitzvos, notwithstanding the common view of the black hats, and the formerly frum, that the Torah is all either verbatim divine dictation, and if so would therefore be binding upon us, or is all merely a human creation, and if so would not be binding in any conventional sense.
Occam occam occam
I just like saying it
Starting from a clean sheet of paper, with everything we know now...the simplest answer is multiple (human) authors (please dont say the word divine)
Watching the moshe's of the world try and squeeze a square peg into a tiny round hole is both humorous and sad.
"'About midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt.' [Exodus 11:4] Why 'about midnight'? Shall we say that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him [Moses}: 'About midnight'? Can there be any doubt [as to the precise hour in question] in the mind of God? Hence we must say that God told him 'at midnight', and he [Moses]came and said: 'About midnight'."
Did Egypt in that time have clocks with minute hands or did they use sundials? If they didn't have clocks with minute hands, how could they know when midnight was?
I always thought that was one of the more inane midrashim...
So if according to the Egyptian clocks, the firstborn all die at 5 mins past midnight, instead of right at 12:00 then clearly this is no plague. Hah, Moses, your God is nothing, He can't even kill us exactly when He says he would...
> G3, glad you brought up the christians and muslim....whats your typical answer to that?
I’m not sure what you mean. I’ve never before heard anyone claim that only “a very small part of the world’s population” believes the Torah was given to Moshe at Har Sinia. The claim is nonsense.
My brother has a blog post which claims that Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Chizkuni all claimed that the Torah includes quotes from other sources which would have been written in a different voice:
http://rabbisedley.blogspot.com/2011/07/ibn-ezra-james-kugel-and-multiple.html
The fact that so many millions believe in the truth of old testament backs the claim that it is divine and true
Believers typically were not convinced of the truth of the Torah by reason and evidence, so trying to use reason and evidence to convince them that it's not true is perhaps not the best strategy.
At least that's what they say over at the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast...
> The fact that so many millions believe in the truth of old testament backs the claim that it is divine and true
Which is also nonsense, but is an entirely different and contradictory claim to the one made in the article.
1. Starting from a clean sheet of paper, with everything we know now...the simplest answer is multiple (human) authors (please dont say the word divine)
Judaism does not start with a clean sheet. It starts with the idea of mesorah.
2.GonnaLetItAllHangOut said...
I always thought that was one of the more inane midrashim...
Many midrashim are inane when looked at superficially or viewed as just a fanciful fairy tale.
So if according to the Egyptian clocks, the firstborn all die at 5 mins past midnight, instead of right at 12:00 then clearly this is no plague. Hah, Moses, your God is nothing, He can't even kill us exactly when He says he would..
You must have been sleeping in shul during that parsha. Many a drasha has discussed this idea. But I won't bore you...
>>>> Rather, God spoke and Moshe Rabbeinu (and/or Joshua and/or others, depending on how you hold) wrote down what he perceived, according to his own understanding. This interpretation explains many perplexities.
Oh! Come on Moshe, it explains little. The anachronisms, the dozens of contradictions, the duplications (that differ in their details), the fictitious history, the non-beneficent laws, the immortality of others, the faulty science…… e.g. did moshe rab. "think” that God told him a flood occurred that destroyed the world and that’s why he reported it. etc….etc.
I can’t even get someone to explain to me how come there are 2 versions of the Decalogue. And i’ve been asking for almost 40 years.
"immortality" ... should be immorality
The first line ("multiple stlyes") is from the paper. The second line ("different voices") is not. I would assume that line in the paper was an out as the researchers are frum. It is fundamentally a computer science paper, not a bible or theology paper. The real kiddush hashem here is that there is a university where CS professors can teach and do research on biblical authorship and present the findings at international conferences.
"2. Chazal, rishonim and acharonim, the greatest experts on all Torah, never ever said that the Torah was written in different 'voices'. Sure, they created explanations for the more obvious flaws, but a 'different voices' theory isn't part of the mesorah and never was. Clearly it's just an invented excuse of an answer for those people who realize that the DH, BC or MA isn't going away."
It seems to me, that you really have stopped learning torah, so much so that you now forget it.
Perhaps you never learned it, but the Zohar is all about "multiple voices", its hard to go a page without being told, this is from the Schechina, this is from Din, this is from Chesed.
The gemarah and Midrash also like to say that "this is for the Cohanim", "this was for the midbar", "this was just for Aaron's sons", "this is for the first born", "this is for klal yisorel", "this is for those living in Israel", "this is for those living in galut"
"different voices" is consistent with "unity of the text", and has been a hallmark of Drush for over 1500 years.
Christianity, has always tried to convert Jews, by arguing on the fact that Gd is always speaking in different voices but with a single message.
David A.,
"The anachronisms"
Ibn Ezra and others were fine with the idea of later prophetic additions, which explains these."
, "the dozens of contradictions,"
If the idea I expressed is correct, these would be expected,as there was human involvement in the process. That doesn't negate that the fact that a Divine voice spoke, and such speech, as perceived by (a) human(s), is the origin of the Torah.
"the duplications (that differ in their details),"
See preceding.
"the fictitious history,"
To be expected. Moshe received the Divine revelation of, say, creation ex nihilo and the brotherhood of man and expressed it in terms of the prevailing understanding of the word's origin. That process is the whole chidush of the Gemora I quoted.
"the non-beneficent laws"
These are few and far between, could be explained by the human involvement in the process, and, in any event, are mitigated by the oral law that originated at the same time as the written text.
"the immortality of others"
You speak truer when you write "immortality".
"the faulty science"
……See above re history.
What?! There are billions of Christians and Muslims who believe that the Chumash was given to Moshe at Har Sinia.
Um, no. Even Catholics don't believe that nonsense. It's only the fundamentalists who believe it.
Moshe, don't you see how you just twist and rationalize and bend over backwards to get to where you want to be?
> Um, no. Even Catholics don't believe that nonsense. It's only the fundamentalists who believe it.
Even if it’s not billions, it’s certainly millions and probably close to a billion. Certainly not “a very small part of the world’s population,” but a significant percentage of it.
> Moshe, don't you see how you just twist and rationalize and bend over backwards to get to where you want to be?
But it’s clever, no? The approach Moshe takes is also typical: someone, somewhere, said something that can be interpreted as multiple voices, therefore traditional sources address the concerns of the DH and we don’t have to worry about it.
"
What?! There are billions of Christians and Muslims who believe that the Chumash was given to Moshe at Har Sinia."
Do us a favor, challenge anything, just not our persecuted minority status, ok?
Rav Mordechai Breuer has an entire volume using the different voices and agendas to support or create important lessons about the mitzvos.
His approach was to embrace the textual differences as meaningful Divine messages.
It makes more sense than you give it credit for when you see his approach.
Interesting how Adlerstein embraces the idea of DH and how OJ has an answer to everything when he writes against the DH elsewhere: http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/11/06/getting-it-wrong/.
>>>> Moshe, don't you see how you just twist and rationalize and bend over backwards to get to where you want to be?
JA,
Unless he's purposefully "yanking our chain", he likely doesn't really see the non-sense he spouts.
after all if moishe gets to write what he wants what makes it TMS?
G3,
"The approach Moshe takes is also typical: someone, somewhere, said something that can be interpreted as multiple voices..."
I never wrote that I subscribe to the multiple voices theory. Indeed, in an earlier thread on this blog I explicitly wrote that I do not.
But if it makes your life easier to criticize me for something that I do not subscribe to, knock yourself out. I always overlook a single factual error, especially when made merely to emphasize a particular preconceived point.
JA,
"you just twist and rationalize and bend over backwards to get to where you want to be?"
I can forgive your apikorsis, but not your wordiness. Next time, please just write "biased".
Of course, we all know that lapsed orthodox Jews have no biases whatsoever....
In my apparent self-delusion, I'd like to think that, since I do not accept either the current "frum" or "frai" position whole cloth, I may be engaged in a sliver of independent thought.
Of course, in addition to "multiple voices" or "multiple divinely inspired authors" being a case of moving goalposts and the other serious problems pointed out above:
There's no more evidence or reason to think any of it is written by one God in multiple voices (or divinely inspired to multiple authors) than there is to accept the traditional account.
Instead, all this argument tries to do is dilute the traditional account to the point that it is nearly unfalsifiable, in the same manner as the Omphalos hypothesis. (I.e., make everything metaphorical so it can't be factually contradicted, shape the divine involvement so that it is expected to look like a human-written text, etc.) Not particularly convincing.
G*3: Even if it’s not billions, it’s certainly millions and probably close to a billion. Certainly not “a very small part of the world’s population,” but a significant percentage of it.
Millions, yes. Note, though, that outside of Judaism, we're talking mostly of third-world citizens and American fundamentalists without college degrees.
Moshe,
In my apparent self-delusion, I'd like to think that, since I do not accept either the current "frum" or "frai" position whole cloth, I may be engaged in a sliver of independent thought.
Yeah, I see your type all the time. Always with some cockamamie, completely idiosyncratic take on every controversial issue. When presented with a conflict, you say, "Hmm, what's a clever way I can make up to reconcile this?" Never, "What is true?"
JA,
"Never, "What is true?"
Pray tell, how does one ascertain whether a metaphysical claim, such as revelation, is "true".
"Pray tell, how does one ascertain whether a metaphysical claim, such as revelation, is "true"."
The same way you manage to figure it out for every other God and every other religion.
"Pray tell, how does one ascertain whether a metaphysical claim, such as revelation, is "true"."
unfalsifiable....once again.
Ksil,
"unfalsifiable"
You mean like your strange idea that the world that you perceive actually exists, and that your consciousness is not, say, merely embedded in a memory chip?
"The same way you manage to figure it out for every other God and every other religion."
Actually, I do not hold that all the the claims of every other religion are invalid. Some are valid, and, in fact, may be divinely inspired. Judaism does not claim that God only speaks to Jews.
>"the non-beneficent laws"
Maybe to you they aren't, but to a society being molded in times of constant war, constant sexual depravity and other immoral acts, perhaps that is exactly what they needed in order to make very obvious separations in thoughts and actions, as individuals and as a nation.
"Pray tell, how does one ascertain whether a metaphysical claim, such as revelation, is "true"."
I'm not saying you need to be able to prove it. I'm saying you're not even asking the question. My point is that you're asking "what rationalization can I create to continue believing what I want to?" instead of "do I think this is true?"
JA,
"I'm saying you're not even asking the question. My point is that you're asking "what rationalization can I create to continue believing what I want to?" instead of "do I think this is true?"
1. How would you know what my thought process is?
2. If I was merely interested in religious "rationalization", isn't it more likely that I would "rationalize" the frum party line, instead of defending a position that most frummies currently would likely reject (not to mention the skeptics who so warmly receive what I write)?
I'm just going by what I see obviously. It seems to me that the truth isn't your primary concern.
>>> Maybe to you they aren't, but to a society being molded in times of constant war, etc …
This is not what is taught in Cheder. The Torah is for all times and all circumstances.
"the non-beneficent laws"
This is not my observation. Chazal realized this 2000 years ago…
what do you think most of TSBP is all about, if not fixing “faulty” laws.
HH, "but to a society being molded in times of constant..."
how do 90% of mitzvot change war, sexual imorality and othe imoral acts?
civil laws take care of most bad stuff...and shaking a lulav? or bikurim? or praying to the moon? or wasting hours upon hours a day learning and davening? (instead of spending it with your family or other productive things)
" (instead of spending it with your family or other productive things)"
Whats so productive about that? If you aren't helping poor people get out of poverty, healing the sick, or correcting injustices on a large scale, all you are doing is consuming other people's resources, people who could be doing those things.
Anon 12:03, wrong. Spending time with your family helps you raise your kids so they will be productive adults and won't be a drain on society.
You could argue that having kids is a waste of time, keeping you from curing cancer, but you'd be wrong. European countries with low birth rates are in trouble from a social and economic point of view. You need people to run a society.
"Whats so productive about that"
point is, its way more productive that waving my hands at a fire on saturday night, or spending $1,200 on leather straps, or sitting in a hut on my patio for 7 days, or sitting in shul on saturday morning for THREE FREAKIN HOURS
>This is not what is taught in Cheder. The Torah is for all times and all circumstances.
What the cheder does is not a counter argument. Well it is for all times and circumstances, but there were initial recipients at some point. You had to take a brand new nation of slaves and change them 180 degrees. Clearly, the law and rituals are made to create a vast separation between "us" and "them."
>Chazal realized this 2000 years ago…
what do you think most of TSBP is all about, if not fixing “faulty” laws.
I don't think chazal realized this because I don't think chazal created much of it. You have already at the times of Ezra him teaching the Torah to the nation and most importantly, explaining what it means (ie, in practical terms). The concept of learning it, and interpreting it was already imbedded there. I do not believe there was some committee at some point and declaring "laws XYZ are a bit faulty, don't you think rabbis? Lets change it!"
>how do 90% of mitzvot change war, sexual imorality and othe imoral acts?
Ksil,
The aim of torah in a nutshell is to separate us from them and lead us to be a holy nation in exact opposite from what the nations around were. Think of any organization worth a damn and you will see rituals sewn into it. To keep it alive and keep it different from the rest. It's there to remind you of a specific direction the nation as a whole (not necassarily the individual) needs to go.
>or wasting hours upon hours a day learning and davening?
I don't understand. You are a recipient of an ancient religion. TODAY, THAT is how we experience this religion. You are not exactly contradicting what I said originally (especially since many things are rabbinic)
Not surprisingly, I disagree with HH about the reasons for the value of hours spent in shul, building a sukkah, etc. I don't care about the perpetuation of an ancient religion. But by spending time doing ritual actions as a family, and creating childhood experiences, you are strengthening the family unit and increasing the likelihood of the children growing up to be productive, happy, and healthy.
So go build the sukkah with your kids, take them to shul, let them help prepare the Shabbos dessert, etc. But skip the part where you leave the house 18 hours a day to "learn", or the part where you kick your kid out of the house because he's dating a non-Jew (for example). Neither of these actions is strengthening society.
HH, I know you will likely say you don't support the idea of a husband learning for 18 hours a day, or a parent kicking out a kid who's dating a non-Jew. But I suggest getting rid of all religious actions that are detrimental to family and human relationships. (Such as skipping your kid's wedding to a non-Jew or a same-sex partner.) If your family will do better if you stay home from shul and do some other activity with your kids, go for it.
I'm in favor of the rituals to the degree they help the family unit, and by extension, society.
>Not surprisingly, I disagree with HH about the reasons for the value of hours spent in shul, building a sukkah, etc.
eh!!! I didn't say I support spending hours sitting in shul. My point was (and I wasn't sure how to make it) is that these things are rabbinic and how judaism expresses itself —in part— today. One doesn't need to sit in yeshiva all day, nor do I condone that.
>(Such as skipping your kid's wedding to a non-Jew or a same-sex partner.)
This I disagree with. I don't believe family gets a 1000% with everything a member wishes to do. They can do what they want, but as Tevya said "If I bend that much I will break"
>Neither of these actions is strengthening society.
What society are you talking about??
That should have read:
I don't believe family gets a 1000% PASS with...
"You could argue that having kids is a waste of time, keeping you from curing cancer, but you'd be wrong. European countries with low birth rates are in trouble from a social and economic point of view. You need people to run a society."
And what does the society do other than destroy the earth and cause corruption, disease, and poverty?
Also, its important to remember that when your family and children engage in self destructive behavior that you allow them to explore this new avenue in life, and not do anything harsh such as taking away their financial support.
As long as they go to the doctor regularly, pay their taxes, and engage in safe sex, engaging in sex for hire can be a wholly fulfilling experience. And you get wealthy while doing so to boot, giving you ample resources to adopt starving children from Africa, and continue the cycle anew!
If you can't understand the difference between prostitution and intermarriage, you are really an idiot...
"If you can't understand the difference between prostitution and intermarriage"
Certainly there is a difference. One is a respected profession which allows people of various upbringings to have a better life, and the other is a means of raising children with confused heritages and potential regret of abandoning their community.
I didnt have the patience to read through all of these comments, just want to point out that "multiple voices" WAS pointed out in the gemara and chazal,though it wasnt called that. the arizal is most clear with his explanation of when and why these voices are changed. some are through the mida of elokim, some through the tetragrammaton, some are the different associations of lights and all are from the same source.
Post a Comment