The Bones of Our Past
I would take a guess that most people who read this blog fall into one of three categories when it comes to the Bible: 1) the Bible is literal and cannot be interpreted any other way; 2) the Bible is mostly allegorical and should not be taken literally; and, 3) the Bible is part literal but also contains allegorical elements. Personally, I fall into category three. I believe that most of the Tanach is literal but not necessarily literal to our own understanding. For example, I believe creation happened in six days but I believe those “days” are “G-d days” and not literal 24-hour earth days. I also believe there are allegorical stories in the Tanach (such as Jonah and the whale).
I have always been interested in archaeology and world religions. Over the past ten years or so, I have become very interested in Biblical archaeology. I have subscribed to Biblical Archaeology Review and I absorb everything in the pages of the magazine. I came across an article (Ancient Biblical Interpreters vs. Archaeology and Modern Scholars – Jan/Feb 2008 issue) which reviewed the book How to Read the Bible by James L. Kugel. Mr. Kugel is an Orthodox Jew who writes extensively on the Second Temple period of Jewish history and commentaries/interpretations of the Bible.
…Where past Orthodox Jewish scholars have called critical Bible scholarship names and ridiculed it, Kugel calls it “an extraordinary intellectual achievement,” “little short of dazzling.” He writes that the scholars who made these discoveries compare to Einstein, Freud, and Darwin.
In the past Orthodox Jews have steadfastly rejected “modern” scholarship, but what are they to do now? They cannot say that Kugel is a secular scholar or that he is antireligious or anti-Orthodox. They cannot say that his book is by someone less learned than they…
Where do you stand on the literalness (or non-literalness) of the Bible? How would you answer the quandary proposed in this snippet of the article?
I’m hoping to write...
1) http://www .jewber...
My attitude to Tanach is complicated. I believe that it is the story of our people. It is the source of our values and laws and norms and as that alone, I would find it enough to put considerable stock in. I also think that most of Tanach’s authors, editors, and redactors meant it to be taken literally. I also think that most of the value in K’tuvim and Nevi’im lies in the ability to discern historical events and attitudes, with the exception of Tehilim and Shir Hashirim, which I think are valuable really on their aesthetic qualities.
I would also classify myself a Category 3 Jew. But not having a good working definition of "critical Bible scholarship," and not having read the article to which you refer, or Kugel’s book, I don’t feel qualified to comment on them specifically.
While I don’t think it would be fair to say of critical Bible scholarship in the Orthodox world, "Everybody’s doin’ it," it would be true to say that Kugel (who teaches at Harvard Divinity School) is not alone. Marc Brettler, Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies in the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University (and a member of my modern Orthodox shul in Newton), is author of a book entitled Reading the Bible, a Jewish historical-critical introduction to the Hebrew Bible.
For most Orthodox Jews, learning Tanach, mishna, and gemara are quite enough to keep one busy. And for some of these same Orthodox Jews, viewing something they see as holy as the Torah through a traditionally secular lens (Kugel’s frumkeit notwithstanding) is distasteful at best. But just as those interested in mysticism are free to study the Zohar, those who desire a more scholarly, secular-academic approach are free to access the many books, articles, and classes available that adopt that perspective.
By the way, Richard Elliott Friedman, author of Who Wrote the Bible?, says, "My purpose is to put the evidence in front of everyone so they can argue for it or against it. The purpose is not to hurt. People imagine I’m attacked all the time by fundamentalist Christians and orthodox Jews, but in fact I’m not. We disagree respectfully." I’m not sure whose biblical scholarship has specifically been reviled by Orthodox Jews (the excerpt doesn’t say), but from the snarky tone of the second paragraph, I’m led to conclude that it is the author or the editors of the Biblical Archeology Review who are "antireligious or anti-Orthodox."
At the moment I’d have to say that I fall quite well into what is referred to as "Conservative III” theology when it comes to Revelation.
Revelation is the disclosure of God Himself. It is not the declaration of specific rules or ideas, but rather a meeting between God and man in which they get to know each other.
Typically “ Conservative III” views the Torah as -
a human record of the encounter between God and the People Israel at Sinai. Since it was written by human beings, it contains some laws and ideas which we find repugnant today.
Of course at least when it comes to me, pretty much everything related to theology is constantly shifting around. Who knows where be, in three month,s six months or a year but this is pretty much where I’ve been since arriving in Los Angeles.
Oh and while we are on the subject I found this interesting page summarizing various takes on “Devine Revelation”. I thought it was rather interesting.