1. This morning Jon went to a meeting with Marc Brettler, an author and professor from Brandeis. The topic of the meeting was Brettler's book "How to Read the Bible", which espouses the use of the Historical-Critical method starting at a very young age. This means using the Documentary Hypothesis, archaeology, comparative literature, etc. to teach the Bible instead of classic rabbinic texts and religious approaches. Jon proposed to Brettler that this course of action would undermine the formation of Jewish identity and invalidate Jewish ritual, but the author disagreed. Disconcerting but still interesting.
2. Jon asked the guard at the bank, with whom he has become friends, what he thinks the traffic will be like due to President Bush's impending visit. The guard replied, "if you don't have to leave your house, don't."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Cultural identity and ritual is often given more meaning through its performance than through any textual/historical basis. In other words, rituals acquire meaning and create identity because they are done among certain people in certain contexts, not because someone believes as a child that a Torah verse must be taken at face value as historical fact from the mouth of God. Seders remain resonant Jewish rituals today, even for Jews who are relatively assimilated and who, if they take any approach to the Torah at all, take a critical one. Why? For the same reason bagels and lox and Eastern European accents build a sense of Jewish identity - because they are "performed" within a Jewish community. You might call this a shallow culture devoid of underlying meaning, but the idea is that culture creates its own meaning for its participants. And if you still hold fast to the idea of an independently meaningful culture *and* you believe that the critical-historical approach is closer to reality, then how is a culture founded in myth (i.e. at the point of identity-building during childhood) independently meaningful?
Instead of arguing that a critical-historical approach to the Bible would undermine Jewish identity or ritual, I'd prefer to import an approach any book-lover should appreciate. It's not that belief in rabbinic interpretation or Divine Authorship inherently produce more authentic Jewish identity or ritual, but that for one to internalize a text, one must first read it on its own terms, from within, and only then consider external forces and voices. It's hard to love Shakespeare when you're reading an annotated edition; but the annotated edition can enhance your appreciation once you've related to the piece.
What's the difference between these two approaches? I wouldn't introduce children to multiple authorship and historical context before they've read the Torah on its own terms. But I also wouldn't present every verse as literal, historical fact. After all, internal analysis still makes room for analysis.
I agree that for many people Jewish identity today is centered around ritual, and that the religious elements behind those rituals are largely irrelevant. While this state of being is the truth of our existence today, I think that at some point there must be a Divine foundation behind the ritual or else we are left with a closed loop that perpetuates itself for no reason other than to perpetuate itself. To clarify: "I intend to do X because my parents did X, and I would like for my children to do X." To act out ritual simply (and I know you do not like the word simply) because it is there may form a social group, but is not inherently spiritually meaningful. I agree that a shared culture creates meaning, but would like to believe that there is an original, spiritual meaning as well.
The purpose of annotations to a text is to explain items that a modern reader may not understand on his or her own, and as such I see Historical-Criticism as another type of annotation. A reading of "Romeo and Juliet" should be undertaken on its own, with the weight of the Bard's own language making its impact on the reader. Once a love for the themes, story, and language are developed the reader can look back and explore the text in greater detail, using historical and biographical analyses.
I agree with your last paragraph entirely. I am not against the Historical-Critical method, and believe, from an E.D. Hirsch point-of-view, that the only truly valid interpretation of a text must begin with its author's original intent, but think that this vein of interpretation must be introduced only later in a student's studies for the reasons stated above with regard to Shakespeare.
You raise an important point when you ask "if you still hold fast to the idea of an independently meaningful culture *and* you believe that the critical-historical approach is closer to reality, then how is a culture founded in myth... independently meaningful?" My personal understanding of this issue is that the Bible was composed by the hands of men, perhaps with political agendas, but with Divinity behind it. I shy away from the phrase "Divinely inspired", however, as that has different meanings for different people. Our sages through the ages have interpreted the Bible in order to make it suitable for their own times, but the chain of tradition must be adhered to, as each successive generation is chronologically more removed from the original truth of the work. By no means do I see the Bible as historical fact, nor do I see the hand of God directly in its writing or words, but I do believe that it is a spiritual document whose writing was directly due to God's involvement.
Post a Comment