Observations June

As I read a lot of stuff on the internet and blog relatively little I thought it would be nice to give an overview of interesting posts I read in June:

A blog I visit quite frequently is the one by Dr. James McGrath, he posited a very interesting thesis which I also quoted on my blog: the idea that to Jewish hearers in the first century, the word became flesh (Joh 1:14) could be equivalent to the spirit descending and remaining on Jesus (Joh 1:32).

Whilst thinking myself about another insight into the Prologue from a mystical source I also had an interesting encounter with a blogger (The Emergent Observer) who was new to me: who on his blog brought forth some interesting speculations about the Rabbinic explanation of megaddlela in conjunction with Mary Magdala.

Furthermore  in the category of Christology, Joshua at Yinon also posted an excerpt of a forthcoming article, wherein he essentially tried to show that the idea of the deity/divinity of the messiah wasnt foreign to 2nd Temple [-or perhaps his:)-] Judaism.

A scholar that approaches Christology from a very different angle is April DeConinck over at The Forbidden Gospels who started – and is still continuing – a series of posts titled: Creating Jesus: How a Jewish Rabbi became God. She makes a big thing of the relationship between the Angel of the Lord and Jesus, though I must say Im a bit skeptical of finding that in the NT, surely this plays a role in the Christology of post-NT figures like Justin Martyr and admittedly Paul seems to attach the Name to Jesus (but see an entry overhere that rightly shows how the Name was also attached to other messengers in Ancient Judaism without making them an intrinsic part of Hashem, or worse, Hashem himself) but thats is as far as it goes I think, but have a look at her posts, they are quite interesting.

Lastly in this category, albeit in Dutch, Geert at Messianic613 managed to put out an interesting post on the anarthrous construction in John 1:1c, which makes him come to the conclusion that “and the word was God” refers to the nature of the word, without implying a second divine person. He says: “the messiah is not a second divine person, but the human in which the word of God is given expression”.

For those who were fed up with reading all those blogs and desired some coffee, Aaron Eby over at Messianics for Torah, uploaded a video showing how the new Starbucks VIA  Ready Brew could be the solution to having a nice (kosher!) cup of coffee on Shabbat.

If you thought that finding solutions for a nice coffee on Shabbat was a bit over the top, how about this post on Hirhurim Musings that shortly explains the halacha wrt wearing a watch on Shabbat!:) as always the opinion is yes and no, depending on different things, like whether its jewelery or clothing, but a definite yes for gold watches:)

Some other interesting musings were put up by Derek Leman, one a bit controversial, by reviewing a book that essentially called for the encouragement of gentile conversion to Judaism and another post that caught my eyes, and judging from the number of comments also alot of others, was about a reference in the Mishnah to how converts should deal with pieces in the liturgy that refer to the patriarchs as “our fathers”.

Also this month FFOZ republished the late Paul Levertoff’s Love and the Messianic Age, which received quite some coverage. Seth and Brian over at Judeoxian also have posted several entries about Paul Levertoff, one of which was the fact that his church was a bonafide boxing ring!:)

Speaking of Jewish converts, another blogpost caught my eye, that related some of the story of Solomon Deutsch, who also wrote a book in (old) Dutch, does this sound like an opportunity for a particular organisation?;) And yet another story (HT: Aaron Eby) of a Jewish convert, published in the Forward, related how a catholic priest desired to make aliyah and has received permission.

As if this was not enough to blow my mind (as I think Judaism is much more appealing!:P), the Jerusalem Post relates the story (again HT: Aaron Eby) of another convert in Israel who appealed to the Supreme Court to overrule the decision by the Chief Rabbinate to declare her bakery un-kosher (on the basis of her new beliefs), which she won.

Paula at Grasping Mashi’ach also appealed to the court but in her case not the Supreme Court but to the Heavenly Court, and in particular to the Moon

Another blog that was new to me called Chidushei Yeshua, compared some of the thoughts of R. Luzatto (aka the Ramchal) in his The Path of the Just with those of Yeshua as written in Mk 8:34-35.

Lastly, as the month May ended with Shavuot, there were several entries on that.

By now its possible you think I have nothing else to do in my life than reading blogs, which isnt true!:P One of the things I have been busy with is my thesis, which is almost finished and after one resit coming wednesday, for which I now have to study, ill be receiving, B”H, my Bachelor degree in Economics:)

Quote on Contradictions

In general, it is an important rule in the clash of opinions that we need not at the outset negate every opinion that seems to contradict something in the Torah. Rather, we must construct the palace of the Torah above it, thereby using it to elevate ourselves. On account of this elevation, the opinions are clearly revealed. Afterward, when we are not pressured by anything, we can do battle against it with a heart full of confidence.

-Rav Kook, Iggerot, 134

Prophecy Historicized

Over the last months, I have picked up a more critical view of the text of the New Testament and have begun to notice several things. One of which is the function of prophecy in the NT.

I used to be very excited about reading prophecies being fulfilled in the NT because I saw it essentially as one of the ‘proofs’ for my faith. I hardly ever doubted their accuracy and never entertained the thought that the verses may have meant something very different. I saw these verses as recorded in the Tanakh as divinely inserted which the NT authors faithfully extracted, in response to what they witnessed.

Several things have made me cast doubts on this idea:

1. Authorial intent

It is far from clear that the authors in the Tanakh ever thought of  their words to include any more than the near future or current events. Take for example Isaiah 7:14, that reads: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

These words were directed to King Ahaz, and most probably referred to the birth of a Davidic prince that would deliver Judah from its enemies. The word virgin in all likelihood did not refer to a virginal conception but to a young girl that  had reached the age of being eligible for marriage.

Another example is the famous vision in Daniel 7, where the son of man most likely refers to the nation Israel and not, at least not in the first place to the messiah.

While this can still be reconciled by saying that maybe the authors of the Tanakh werent aware of the depth of their own writing, the next point is much more difficult.

2. Prophecy Historicized

In examining the stories in the NT, it is apparent that there are many parrallels with stories from the Tanakh. For example the stories contained in the first chapters of Matthew are largely following a combination of the birth of Moses and other stories. What follows is largely based on the work of R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah:

• Matt 2:13-14 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” 14 And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt

Ex 2:15 When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses. But Moses fled from Pharaoh and stayed in the land of Midian. And he sat down by a well.

• Matt 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under

Ex 1:22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews you shall cast into the Nile, but you shall let every daughter live.”

• Matt 2:19 Herod died

Ex 2:23 the king of Egypt died

• Matt 2:19-20 an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.”

Ex 4:19 And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt, for all the men who were seeking your life are dead.”

• Matt 2:21 And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.

Ex 4:20 So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt.

The parallels are amazing, and I remember very well that I used to think, “Great! Look, this too is prophecy fulfilled”, but it could very well be that this is not history prophesied, but as Dominic Crossan put it: “Prophecy historicized”.

Many other stories in the NT can be treated in this way as well and this makes me have doubts on how much you could talk about prophecies being fulfilled. As in my opinion it is more the hand of the author the Gospel in these accounts than sober history being recorded. And this feels uncomfortable because its evident that they had an interest in polishing the stories to reflect their beliefs concerning Jesus.

3. Authority of the Tanakh for the authors of the NT; reading Scripture Christian-ly

This point was driven home well by James Dunn in the chapter titled “The Use of the Old Testament” in his Unity and Diversity in the NT, he says:

In short, the first Christians valued the OT not as an independent authority so much as an interpreted authority. p. 102

The Tanakh was read through the eyes of the ‘new’ revelation, and as such there were few problems in ‘establishing proofs’ for Jesus as:

[...] where the old revelation did not fit with the new there was little question for the mainstream of first-century Christianity but that the old had to be adapted to the new or else abandoned. p. 110

A footnote brings this out even more eloquent:

The place of the Old Testament in the formation of New Testament theology is that of a servant, ready to run to the aid of the gospel whenever it is required, bolstering up arguments, and filling out meaning through evocative allusions, but never acting as the master or leading the way, nor even guiding the process of thought behind the scenes. p. 110 n. 33

Taking this into account it doesnt really make sense to see ‘all’ those prophecies as proofs for Jesus messiahship… true there are some general events that are hard to be denied such as his suffering and vindication, not to mention the expansion of the God of Israel across the globe (however tainted that may have been), but in light of this it doesnt make alot of sense to draw up whole lists of parallels between the gospels and the Tanakh as it seems often these are not cases of history prophesied but prophecy historicized…

Books in the mail

I just came home from university and was pleased to find three books in the mail:

1. Dale Allison – The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (2009)

2. Aaron Levine – Moral Issues of the Marketplace in Jewish Law (2005)

3. The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an (2006)

The first one I heard about through two inspiring reviews. See here for James McGrath’s and here for Scot McKnight’s.

The second one I bought because Im about to finish my bachelor degree and will do an internship in August at a well known bank. Not that I will be calling the shots overthere but still I would like to learn about business ethics as Im slowly entering the corporate world. And the last one I bought with the reason of broadening my understanding of the Qur’an as I will most probably have discussions in Turkey again.

Quote on the Torah

The giving and the receiving of the Torah, according to the Bible itself, were not one and the same event. The revelation of the Torah and its acceptance where separated by ages of negligence and strife. In the desert, despite the people’s cry of “we shall do and listen,” the appearance of the Torah was followed by idolatry, by apathy, and near-fatal inner strife. When the people of Israel congregated once more – at long last and of their own accord – they found, not Moses and the pure and perfect Torah of the wilderness, but Ezra and his composite Torah, made maculate by centuries of human history. [1]

———————————————————————————-

[1] David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored (SCM Press: London, 2001), p. 84

Rashi and the plain meaning

Many people think Rashi is the great commentator of the plain meaning and while its certainly true that Rashi is one of the greatest commentators, it is not necessarily true wrt the plain meaning.

Though he often mentions that he has come to explain the plain meaning, his commentary when compared with especially midrashim, is full of these explanations. This has led to his grandson, the Rashbam, taking up the work of delivering strictly the plain meaning, to the extent that he even explains the passage concerning Tefilin as symbolical and not literal (note that the Rashbam did wear Tefilin himself).

Heres a couple of examples from the Torah-reading Beha’alotcha.

Rashi comments on 12:1 “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses…”

SPOKE – Forms of the word דבור in all places in Scripture are (mean) nothing but harsh language…. And forms of the word אמירה in all places in Scripture are (mean) nothing but supplicative language… Every word נא, a supplicative expression, in these examples denotes request.

Compare this to Midrash Tanchuma Tzav Ch. 13:

אין נא אלא לשון בקשה – [the word] נא is nothing but supplicative language/expression

Continuing the Midrash says:
ואין דבור בכל מקום אלא לשון קשה – and [the word] דבור in all places is nothing but hard language

And lastly:
ואין אמירה אלא תחנונים – and [the word] אמירה is nothing but supplications.

Now these are fairly plain you would say and I would agree, but here is another example:

MIRIAM, AS WELL AS AARON, SPOKE – She initiated the speaking. This is why Scripture puts her first, ahead of Aaron. And from where did Miriam know that Moses separated himself from the woman, i.e. his wife? The Tanna R’ Nassan says: Miriam was at Zipporah’s side at the time when it was said to Moses “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.” When Zipporah heard this, she said “Woe to the wives of these, Eldad and Medad, if they will be charged with prophecy, in the manner that my husband, Moses, separated from me.” From there Miriam knew that Moses had separated from his wife, and she told Aaron. Now if Miriam, who did no intend to speak of his disparagement, was thus punished, how much more so one who speaks of the disparagement of his fellow.

The Midrash says:

ולמה אמר תחלה מרים ואחר כך אהרן. אלא שהיא פתחה בדבר תחלה, ולפיכך הקדימה הכתוב. ומה אמרו, הרק אך במשה דבר ה’ (במד’ יב ב), כלומר, במשה דבר ה’ לבדו, שפירש מאשתו. הלא גם בנו דבר (שם), כמו כן דבר עמנו ולא פירשנו מדרך ארץ.

ומנין היתה יודעת מרים שפירש משה מן האשה. רבי נתן אומר, מרים היתה בצד צפורה כשאמרו למשה אלדד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה (שם יא כז). וכיון ששמעה צפורה, אמרה, אוי להם לנשותיהם של אלו.

ומאיזה זמן פירש משה מדרך ארץ, אלא בשעה שאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא למשה בסיני קודם מתן תורה שיקדש את העם ואמר להם, לשלשת ימים אל תגשו אל אשה (שמות יט טו), פירשו הם מנשותיהם ופירש משה מאשתו. ואחר מתן תורה אמר ליה הקדוש ברוך הוא, לך אמור להם, שובו לכם לאהליכם, ואתה פה עמוד עמדי (דב’ ה ל-לא), ואל תשוב לדרך ארץ.

וכשאמרה צפורה אוי לנשותיהן של אלו, הן נזקקין לנבואה שיהו פורשין מנשותיהם כמו שפירש בעלי הימני. ומשם ידעה מרים והגידה לאהרן.

ומה מרים שלא נתכוונה לגנותו של משה, נענשה. קל וחמר למספר בגנותו של חבירו ובלשון הרע, ילקה האדם בצרעת.

And why does Miriam speak first and afterwards Aaron? Only because that she opened/initiated the speaking first, and therefore Scripture puts her first. And why did they say: “is it only to Moses that Hashem spoke?” (Num 12:2), that is to say, to Moses spoke Hashem alone [so(?)] that he separated from his wife. “Did He not speak with us as well”, as he spoke with us and we did not separate from the way of the world.

And from where did Miriam know that Moses separated from the wife? Rabbi Nathan says, Miriam was at the side of Zipporah when they said to Moses Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp (Num 11:27). And when Zipporah heard this, she said, “woe to them, to the wives of these”.

Whatever time Moses would separate from the way of the world, would only be in the hour that the Holy One Blessed Be He spoke to Moses at Sinai before the giving of the Torah, sanctify the people and said to them, “for three days do not approach a woman” (Ex. 19:15) The people separated from their women and Moses separated from his wife. And after the giving of the Torah said Hashem to him, go say to them, go back to your tents, and you stand here with me (Deut. 5:30-31), and (they?) return to the way of the world.

And Zipporah said “woe to the wives of these, [if] they will be charged with prophecy, for they will separate from their wives like my husband separated from me”. And from here Miriam knew and told Aaron.

And if Miriam, who did not intend to speak of his disparagement, was punished in that way, how much more so one who speaks of the disparagement of his friend/neighbour and the evil tongue, a man [who does so] will be stricken with leprosy.

As you can see there are many parallels and pieces that are literally copied, and Im not convinced that this part represents the plain meaning. Granted, it is possible that its the plain meaning but more likely Miriam just spoke up because, to put it bluntly, she felt she was left out. To use Rashi’s words, she did speak of his disparagement and thats exactly the reason why she was stricken with leprosy. 

It is one thing for the Midrash that does not claim to deliver the plain meaning, to fill in gaps or work with anomalies in the text and for a pshat commentary to deliver it as if it happened like that. But then again, one could raise the question whether its possible to draw such sharp distinctions between midrash and Scripture.

None of this though diminishes the greatness of Rashi, he is a great educator and I think he is more concerned with directing his audience to a love for Hashem, the Torah and the Jewish people  than sticking to the plain meaning.

Question on Ex 3:1

One of the exercises in my Biblical Hebrew textbook is translating verses, its really interesting and gives great satisfaction once you see your translation fits with other english translations. I noticed that my translations often look alot like the one’s of Artscroll and sometimes the KJV.

This time the exercise was on Exodus 3:1

ומשה, היה רעה את-צאן יתרו חתנו–כהן מדין; וינהג את-הצאן אחר המדבר, ויבא אל-הר האלקים חרבה

Which I translated as: And Moses was tending the flock of Yitro his father-in-law, priest of Midian and he led the flock beyond/through the desert and he came to the mountain of God, Horev.

The textbook pointed to a little superscript “a”, (in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia edition), attached to האלקים (God), which is a footnote that says: >G*, which indicates that this word is not found in the original Septuagint, and then asks what the difficulty is with “God” in this context. 

Obviously the difficulty is that the mountain Horev only became known as mountain of God after the revelation of the Torah was given there, which is still some 16 chapters away from us. 

Rashi also notes this and says the Torah already calls it as such because of its role in the future. But what interests me is that its not present in the original LXX. 

I mean why would that be the case? Would it be an attempt on the part of the translators of the LXX to make it more logical and call it only the mountain of God after the revelation of the Torah?

Interesting post on the Prologue

Biblioblogger James F. McGrath has posted an interesting thought on the Prologue, he argues that the author of the Prologue may have referred to Jesus’ baptism when writing, “the word became flesh”.  He says: 

This was a common interpretation among early Christians (although rejected by developing orthodoxy, it was maintained in the Jewish-Christian Pseudo-Clementine literature, which regularly uses Johannine language in reference to Jesus). But more importantly than that, in the context of Jewish and developing Christian thought in the time when this Gospel was written, concepts like Word, Wisdom and Spirit were not clearly distinguished, and so many readers would have found “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) a natural equivalent to what we are told slightly later, namely that the Spirit descended and remained on him (John 1:32). (For the full post see here: “When Did The Word Become Flesh?” )

For people who are interested in this, or generally interested in Christology I would highly recommend his soon-to-be released book called: The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context

Insight into John’s logos from a mystical source

I was reading the comments provided by Chabad.org on the Torah portion Naso and found a very interesting comment by the first Rebbe of Chabad; Rabbi Schneur Zalman:

The Torah has been compared to water because just as water tends to descend from a higher place to a lower place, so has the Torah descended from its place of glory, which is the will and wisdom of G-d… until it has clothed itself in physical things and in matters of this world. [1]

Although his work is written much later than the Gospel of John, I think its possible to view the Prologue of John through a somewhat similar perspective.

John writes about the word being in the beginning with God, and in some sense, God, or perhaps better stated, expressive of what God was, and goes on to equate the word with Jesus. This has led, and perhaps rightfully so, to the idea that if the word = God, Jesus = the word, then Jesus = God. However as Ive argued before theres a lot to say against that.

But lets look at it with the text quoted above, (though I by no means qualify as an interpreter of the Tanya), he says in a sense that the will and wisdom of God descended  and were wrapped into physical things and matters of this world. Will and wisdom of God are apt translations of logos and as such I think its possible to see a parallel between the Alter Rebbe’s explanation of the Torah and John’s Jesus. 

The physical text of the Torah descended from a higher place in the sense that it is the will and wisdom of God, similarly it is possible to see Jesus as descending from a higher place in the sense that his life reflected the will and wisdom of God, to the point of being equated with it.

An important point to be noted is that the Alter Rebbe certainly did not believe by writing these words on the Torah that the Torah was God. This corollary is so ingrained in Christianity that it seems that another interpretation on the Prologue is inconceivable yet I think it would be a valid way of seeing Jesus in the same way as the Alter Rebbe described the text of the Torah; the continuation of Gods will and wisdom on earth.

 

————————————————————-
[1] Parshah summary & commentary, Chabad.org, p.15

Quote on the Judgement of God

Perhaps we may say that God judges man and humanity in two different ways. An analogy might be an attempt to judge which of two mountain climbers is the more accomplished? A is at a higher point than B. If height is the criterion, he is superior. But it may be that both were skylifted to certain heights by a helicopter, and while A descended, B went further up. From this perspective B’s achievement is more significant. In mathematics we differentiate between the function and the derivative. God judges the objective reality on the basis of the function and man on the basis of the derivative. [1]

———————————————————–
[1] Shalom Rosenberg, In the Footsteps of the Kuzari (New York: Yashar Books, 2008), p.163

Natural selection and religion

A couple of days ago I received in our mail a booklet titled: “What if Genesis 1-3 did not happen literally”. It was a booklet promoting the belief in creationism and showing how evolution was problematic for faith in God as the Creator. 

This booklet actually came as a result of two prominent theologians openly changing their views from Creationism to Theistic-Evolution which caused quite a stir in Evangelical and orthodox circles.

I personally also believed that Genesis 1-3 should be taken literally, not only because I thought it would be theologically problematic to do otherwise but because I had been listening to organizations like Answers in Genesis and most people in my environment believed it.

Re-interpretation

I dont remember exactly what made me doubt creationism but over the course of time I have started doubting it and came to the conclusion that the Bible is not so much a book about the question HOW the world was created but much more WHY it was created and what our response should be to it. It is not a science book and in my opinion people who view it in that way have an extremely weak  foundation for their faith for if science proves things in the Bible like Gen 1-3 to be scientifically false you in a sense have a false revelation… 

The Rambam’s approach also influenced my thinking, in his day there was a large debate about the eternity of the universe and while he rejected the prevalent notion among the philosophers of his day; that the universe was eternal, he said that if in the end there comes proof for the eternity of the universe he would find a way to reconcile it with the Torah.

And I think this is exactly the way to go, if science disproves the idea that seems to be taught by some passages in the Bible that the earth is a disc floating on the oceans and that the stars are hung upon a cord we simply need to reinterpret those verses and in many cases read them not literally but allegorically.

Picking and choosing

I also had a discussion while in Turkey with some of my Muslim friends and they were eager to point to certain passages in the Qur’an that seemed to foretell scientific principles that we have only recently discovered. Now besides the point whether thats actually possible, I asked them what would happen to their faith were science to disprove things that were recorded in the Qur’an. To which they answered, that in the case science posits something different from what the Qur’an is telling, they would simply ignore science and stick with the Qur’an. And this in a sense is also what some groups of Christians do, making up all kind of conspiracy theories, how evolution is actually a big hoax and lacks conclusive evidence, and how scientists deliberately try to make up stuff to bolster their case.

False dichotomy

Especially in the U.S.A. this has led to two big camps, the conservative camp clinging to the creationism point of view and the liberal camp embracing the evolutionary point of view. And any sign of threading outside of those camps is seen as betrayal. And this is sad as it drives people away from the Bible, people feel they are being pushed into making a decision between either believing in God or believing in science. Which is a false dichotomy.

Consequences for faith

At the moment Im reading a book by Keith Ward called The Big Questions in Science and Religion which I would recommend to anyone having questions about this. Theres a chapter about whether evolution is compatible with creation and he concludes by saying that it is although there needs to be considerable reinterpretation of the first three chapters. A pressing issue especially for Christians is the concept of Original Sin or the idea that death came as a result of sin. He says:

Suffering and death existed long before the first humans did, and they seem to be essential factors in the ascent of humans to dominance on the planet earth. They are not just imprerfections that might have been avoided, if Adam had not sinned. Without them, Adam, or the first member of the species homo sapiens, would never even have existed. [1]

This is problematic to say the least, as most of Paul’s argument in Jesus being the second Adam seems to fall apart if it wasnt Adam’s sin that caused death to enter the world… 

Ward puts forth some ideas on how to reconcile this:

What some Christians call “original sin” can be seen, from an evolutionary perspective, as the decision by groups of early humans or even prehominids to realize their genetically inherent tendencies toward kinship bonding and altruism. Over generations, those destructive tendencies have “switched on” the relevant genetic mechanisms, until it has now become “human nature” to be selfish and aggressive… Humans may not, as the Genesis account suggests, have brought suffering and death into the world. But they have immeasurably increased the sum of suffering, and they have brought spiritual death, the death of the sense of God into the world. [2]

Although Im not a big fan of the idea of Original Sin, I must say that he does a very creative job and his methodology is one that I think is more viable in the long run.

The Jewish perspective

I asked a Jewish friend of mine what the consequences from a Jewish point of view would be were death not to be the consequence of sin, and he cited the late Chief Rabbi Hertz:

Strange and sombre doctrines have been built on this chapter of the Garden of Eden, such as the Christian doctrine of the Original Sin (e.g. ‘In Adam’s fall, we sinned all’)… Judaism rejects these doctrines. Man was mortal from the first and death did not enter the world through the transgression of Eve. Stray Rabbinic utterances to the contrary are merely homiletic and possess no binding authority in Judaism. There is no loss of God-likeness of man, nor of man’s ability to do right in the eyes of God; and no such loss has been transmitted to his latest descendants. Although a few Rabbis occasionally lament Eve’s share in the poisoning of the human race by the Serpent, even they declare that the antidote to such poison has been found at Sinai; rightly holding that the Law of God is the bulwark against the devastations of animalism and godlessness… Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man; and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue (זכות אבות) the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants. ‘There is no generation without its Abraham, Moses or Samuel’ says the Midrash; i.e. each age is capable of realizing the highest potentialities of the moral and spiritual life.”

My friend did point out that theres a Gemara (Shabbat 55a-b) where it does seem to advocate the idea that death came as a result of sin but that could also be among those Hertz deemed homiletical and not binding. 

Natural selection

The approach advocated by the Rambam and Keith Ward could be seen in some way as analogous to Natural selection; theology should constantly adapt itself and only those ideas and concepts that are able to stand through the test of time should be held to. Needless to say there is a limit to this and Im sure many would feel that putting death before sin is off-limit and hurting the Christian faith, however if this proves to be necessary, I think we have no other choice.

 

—————————————————————–

[1] Keith Ward, The Big Questions in Science and Religion (West Consohocken: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008), p.64

[2] Ibid. p.81

[3] Hertz Chumash

Quote on Paul

We retained Jesus as Savior but promoted the apostle Paul (or someone else) to Lord and Teacher. [1]

————————————————————————-

[1] Brian D. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), p.86

Accounting for bias

I have just finished the book Seth recommended me; Is the NT reliable? by Paul Barnett.

Some observations:

First of all, it was kind of conservative, or better said, apologetic. In much of what he wrote there was a tendency to fill up the gaps in the NT, and argue for the NT. Now this is a worthy cause and surely I would be much more frustrated would the opposite happen. But at times it felt not really fair, and open… I just think a few question marks would have been appropriate and could have strenghtened his work, i.e. in places where he, or NT scholarship, arent sure, it would be appropriate to leave things open and not to argue it for the sake of arguing or filling up gaps.

Another thing that struck me was the fact that on the one hand he was putting forth some of the results of source crticism, such as the Q sayings, L and M but on the other hand was able to argue that most of the witnesses in the NT did not depend on each other. 

Also when it comes to dating the documents he is accounting quite conservatively and quotes several times J.A.T. Robinson who placed nearly all documents before 70 C.E.

But one of the major points in this book that I have problems with is the portrayal of the NT authors as reliable witnesses, now dont get me wrong, I do think that most of them are reliable but I think a major point that is missing in his presentation is bias. That is, the authors of the NT are biased and dont have the intention to present the facts and let the reader decide him/herself what to do with it. Clearly, they have a motive in writing these documents, consider the Gospel of John: “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

And while the popular saying: “the winners write history” holds for other documents as well, this certainly should or lets say could be taken into account when examining the NT. And in my opinion this is done very little, especially in this book.

In the mail

The following books I received today: 

1. James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament 

2. Keith Ward, Big Questions in Science and Religion

3. N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope

 

Ill definitely be looking forward to reading them, especially Dunn’s as I think his exegesis will be very interesting and open up a whole new dimension to my outlook on the NT. Also Ward’s as Im very interested to read about his views on the compatibility of faith and evolution, as he holds to whats called Theistic-Evolution.

Choices

I finished Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis and liked it alot:) He has a nice way of writing and his message was very constructive and in many ways timely, not only for the church at large but for me personally as well.

In the epilogue he relates a story from his youth which touched me, he recounts a moment in church where the preacher asked everybody to close their eyes and told that those who wanted could ask Jesus in their hearts by repeating his prayer. He then started to pray the prayer but Rob Bell kept his eyes open, the preacher after finishing his prayer asked the audience to keep their eyes closed so that those who had asked him into their hearts could raise their hands, thereupon he said he saw hands being raised one after the other, but Rob Bell who had his eyes open saw that nobody raised his hands! The preacher said, “I see a young lady in the front who has raised her hands, thanks for your choice, and overthere in the back” all the time while nobody was raising their hands. 

Rob then writes:

I am like you. I have seen plenty done in the name of God that Im sure God doesnt want anything to do with. I have lots of reasons for bailing on the whole thing.I am also like you because I have a choice. To become bitter, cynical, jaded, and hard. Anybody can do that. A lot have. Hatred is a powerful, unifying force. And there is a lot to be repulsed by.

This touched me as I realize that in some ways I am also becoming more cynical and at times even bitter. So many questions and so few people that are open to listen, without taking a heresy test. In search for an expression of my ‘faith’ that is both viable in the long term and true to my beliefs. Yet being frustrated as it seems the choices arent that broad but sociologically one is pushed into an all-embracing position. Still I think Rob Bell is right, its a choice to become bitter and cynical, and I dont want either of them… Would then the way to go be one where I keep my own ‘distinctive’ beliefs in the background and focus on whats mutually binding, how little that may be at times? 

———————————————————

[1] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), pp.176-177