There is a potential problem with separating out J and E that needs to be discussed. According to the DH, J and E were edited together into one text (appropriately called JE), and it is often hard to separate the strands. There are some stories or passages where characteristics indicating J are found right next to other characteristics indicating E. For example, the burning bush story in Exodus 3, and the revelation at Sinai in Exodus 19 both have combined sections from J and E. This problem is resolved by splitting the passage sentence by sentence, or sometimes even clause by clause.
In general, there are two possibilities here. It might be the case that the DH is correct and J and E were edited together this way. Alternatively, it might be the case that the DH is wrong and this is in fact a single text. If the former, it is quite difficult to show that this is the case. After all, one of the stronger arguments for the DH is that some passages are complete by themselves, show an internal consistency in style, wording, and content, but show an inconsistency with other passages. However, if a passage has elements of both J and E thoroughly mixed throughout, then it is much more difficult to show that they were originally separate texts. One would have to show that particular sentences or clauses show multiple characteristics of one source but not the other, and this gets difficult to show this persuasively at the sentence level.
One way of handling this problem is to treat J and E as a single combined source called JE, and contrast that with the other sources P and D. After all, most scholars believe that it is fairly easy, at least in most passages, to separate between P, D, and the combined JE.
That approach is fine as far as it goes. But the problem is that sometimes J shares characteristics with one of the other sources and E with another source. For example, J and P both refer to the mountain where God appears as "Sinai" and D and E both refer to it as "Horeb", and noted here and here. But if J and E are combined together, then that means that the combined document JE sometimes uses "Sinai" and sometimes uses "Horeb". That is obviously a less persuasive argument than if J and E were cleanly separable.
This is less persuasive, but not unpersuasive. After all, P uses only Sinai, and D uses only Horeb. That's a pretty compelling distinction by itself. And if we have multiple reasons to think that particular sentences or verses in JE are actually J or E, then that separation, although not as clean as the separation between P and D, is still somewhat persuasive.
Like always, this argument cannot be resolved in the abstract. The details are important. But it is something to watch carefully as we work through the text.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Problems with E and J
Monday, April 27, 2009
Horeb or The Moutain of God - E and D
The word "Horeb" or the phrase "the mountain of God" ("har Elohim") appears 6 times in E, 9 times in D, and never in P or J. The complete list is set forth below.
(E) Exod. 3:1: Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. (Note: E and J are both present in the burning bush story. Separating them is complex. However, Friedman makes a reasonable case in his footnote. I will discuss how reasonable or unreasonable this is when we discuss that particular story. At that time, we will assume the various characteristics of each source and see how well that explains the divisions. But for now we are doing the opposite; we are assuming the divisions into sources and seeing how well that explains the characteristics of each source.)
(E) Exod. 4:27: The LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the desert to meet Moses." So he met Moses at the mountain of God and kissed him.
(E) Exod. 17:6: "...I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink."
(E) Exod. 18:5: Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, together with Moses' sons and wife, came to him in the desert, where he was camped near the mountain of God.
(E) Exod. 24:13: Then Moses set out with Joshua his aide, and Moses went up on the mountain of God.
(E) Exod. 33:6: So the Israelites stripped off their ornaments at Mount Horeb.
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:2: It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:6: The LORD our God said to us at Horeb, "You have stayed long enough at this mountain. . . ."
(Dtr1) Deut. 1:19: "Then, as the LORD our God commanded us, we set out from Horeb . . . ."
(Dtr1) Deut. 4:10: Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, "Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children."
(Dtr1) Deut. 4:15: You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire.
(Dtr1) Deut. 5:2: The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.
(Dtr1) Deut. 9:8: At Horeb you aroused the LORD's wrath so that he was angry enough to destroy you.
(Dtn) Deut. 18:16: For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
(Dtr1) Deut. 29:1: These are the terms of the covenant the LORD commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.
* * *
Sinai and Horeb are both names of the mountain where God appeared to Moses and the Hebrews. Yes Sinai is used exclusively by P and J, while Horeb is used exclusively by E and D. Standing alone, that strongly supports the DH. In a separate post, I will examine the traditional Jewish understanding of why this mountain has two names.
* * *
As an aside, the only other place in the Tanach where "mountain of God" is used is in 1st Kings, and it is equated with Horeb: "So he [Elijah] got up and ate and drank. Strengthened by that food, he traveled forty days and forty nights until he reached Horeb, the mountain of God." (1 Kings 19:8.) First Kings is part of the Deuteronomist history, and it is noteworthy that it uses Horeb, not Sinai, like the rest of D.
In Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, the only place where Sinai appears in in the Song of Deborah, in Judges 5: "The mountains quaked before the LORD, the One of Sinai, before the LORD, the God of Israel." (Judges 5:5.) Scholars believe this song was from an independent very early source, and was inserted into Judges by D.
* * *
Update: see here for a particular problem with J and E.
.
Sinai - P and J
One commonly cited difference between the sources is the J and P use the term "Sinai" while E and D use "Horeb". Each will be examined in a separate post, as well as traditional explanations for the difference.
"Sinai" appears 18 times in P, 6 times in J, 4 times in R, and 2 times in Other sources. It appears no times in E or D.
The following are all the references to Sinai in the Torah:
(R) Exod. 16:1: The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt.
(P, R) Exod. 19:1-2: In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt — on the very day — they came to the Desert of Sinai. 2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.
(J) Exod. 19:11: And the LORD said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes 11 and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
(J) Exod. 19:18: Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire.
(J) Exod. 19:20: The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain.
(J) Exod. 19:23: Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai . . . ."
Note: Exodus 19 (the revelation at Sinai) has both E and J interspersed. We will see how persuasive the divisions are when we examine this chapter as a whole. But for now, we are assuming that the source divisions are correct and determining how well that explains the different characteristics of each source.
(P) Exod 24:16: . . . and the glory of the LORD settled on Mount Sinai.
(P) Exod. 31:18: When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets . . . .
(J) Exod. 34:2: Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai.
(J) Exod. 34:4: So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning . . . .
(P) Exod. 34:29: When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets
(P) Exod. 34:32: Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the LORD had given him on Mount Sinai.
(P) Lev. 7:38: These, then, are the regulations for the burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the ordination offering and the fellowship offering, 38 which the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai on the day he commanded the Israelites to bring their offerings to the LORD, in the Desert of Sinai.
(P) Lev. 25:1 (-2): The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter the land I am going to give you, the land itself must observe a sabbath to the LORD.
(P) Lev. 26:46: These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the LORD established on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.
(P) Lev. 27:34: These are the commands the LORD gave Moses on Mount Sinai for the Israelites.
(P) Num. 1:1: The LORD spoke to Moses in the Tent of Meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt.
(P) Num. 1:19: And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai
(R) Num. 3:1: This is the account of the family of Aaron and Moses at the time the LORD talked with Moses on Mount Sinai.
(P) Num. 3:4: Nadab and Abihu, however, fell dead before the LORD when they made an offering with unauthorized fire before him in the Desert of Sinai.
(P) Num. 3:14 (-15): The LORD said to Moses in the Desert of Sinai, "Count the Levites by their families and clans.
(P) Num. 9:1 (-2): The LORD spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, "Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover
(P) Num. 9:5: and they did so in the Desert of Sinai
(P) Num. 10:12: Then the Israelites set out from the Desert of Sinai and traveled from place to place until the cloud came to rest in the Desert of Paran.
(P) Num. 26:64: Not one of them was among those counted by Moses and Aaron the priest when they counted the Israelites in the Desert of Sinai.
(R) Num. 28:6: This is the regular burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai as a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire.
(Other) Num. 33:15: They left Rephidim and camped in the Desert of Sinai.
(Other) Num. 33:16: They left the Desert of Sinai and camped at Kibroth Hattaavah.
(P) Deut. 33:2: his is the blessing that Moses the man of God pronounced on the Israelites before his death. He said: "The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; . . . ."
* * *
Sinai and Horeb are both names of the mountain where God appeared to Moses and the Hebrews. Yes Sinai is used exclusively by P and J, while Horeb is used exclusively by E and D. Standing alone, that strongly supports the DH. In a separate post, I will examine the traditional Jewish understanding of why this mountain has two names.
* * *
Update: see here for a particular problem with J and E.
.
The Documentary Hypothesis - Characteristics of Each Source
I have now prepared five chart showing which verses of the Torah belong to which sources, at least according to Richard E. Friedman and Samuel Driver. I am going to start a (long) series of posts about the particular characteristics of each source. For example, a common argument is that "Sinai" was used by P and J, and "Horeb" was used by E and D. I will start with this example, list each time that Sinai and Horeb are used, and then see how they line up with the different sources. I will have one post on Sinai, one on Horeb, and at least one post on the traditional Jewish explanations for the use of each name.
Remember the Bayes-theorem methodology: I will assume the documentary hypothesis is correct and then see how well it explains the actual occurrences of these words. If it does easily and naturally, it will weigh in favor of the DH being correct. If it appears forced, with ad hoc justifications and explanations, then it will not weigh in favor of the DH being correct. Similarly, for the traditional explanations, I will assume that TMS is correct and then see how well it explains the actual occurrences of these words. If it does easily and naturally, it will weigh in favor of TMS being correct. If it appears forced, with ad hoc justifications and explanations, then it will not weigh in favor of TMS being correct.
The purpose of this introductory post is to think about what specifically I will be looking for when examining the sources. I can think of several particular "issues", and I will update this list as I go. Please feel free to add additional criteria in the comments.
For these purposes, I will assume that the division of the Torah into sources is correct and fixed. The specific issue is given this division of the Torah into sources, how well does it explain the occurrence of the words in the places that they occur.Criteria Pertaining to Words
1. Obviously, the central issue is how many times does the word appear in its supposed source and how many times in other sources. If the word appears many times in one source, and few or no times in other sources, it is strong supporting evidence for the DH.
2. If the word has a synonym, does a different source use the synonym instead? If one source uses one word, and another source uses the synonym, it is strong supporting evidence for the DH.
3. Is the appearance of the word in a source explained by its meaning? A brief note is in order here. If the presence of a word in a source is explained by its meaning, it is weaker evidence (or perhaps no evidence) of the distinctiveness of the source. For example, P is the "priestly" author. If the P verses were selected because their content involved things that the priests were concerned with --- priests, sacrifices, ritual purity, and so on --- then it would not be surprising to find that the words pertaining to these matters are contained in P. The argument --- at least in this simplistic formulation --- is circular.
In contrast, the disproportionate use of particular words in a source that are not explained by their simple meaning (such as Sinai and Horeb) is stronger evidence of different sources.
In actuality, P is concerned with more than priestly matters, the P verses were chosen on numerous grounds, and other sources (especially D) are also concerned with priestly matters. So a word whose location is explained by its meaning is not irrelevant, but instead is weaker evidence for the DH. The analogous situation in statistics is correlation among the independent variables. Where such correlation exists, more data from correlated variables provides some explanatory power, but not as much as similar data from uncorrelated variables. (There are many limitations and qualifications that I am skipping over.)
4. Is the appearance of the word in a source explained by related words? This is similar to the last point. If two words are frequently used together, the presence of one word is largely explained by the presence of the other word. In such cases, it might be more helpful to thing of the two words together as forming one phrase.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Deuteronomy
Here is a table showing all the verses in Deuteronomy and which source they are from. Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.
Here's information about the table.
F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.
Sources:
Dtr1 - The original version of Deuteronomy that King Josiah had around 622 BCE. (Driver calls this D)
Dtr2 - The additional portions added to Deuteronomy after the Babylonian exile. (Driver calls this D2)
Dtn - a law code that occupies Deuteronomy 12-26. (Driver does not identify this as a separate source.)
J - J
E - E
P - P
R - Redactor
Here's the table.
Chapter
Friedman
Driver
Difference?
Notes
Deuteronomy
1:1-2
Dtr1
Dtr1
1:3
Dtr1
P
*
1:4-46
Dtr1
Dtr1
2
Dtr1
Dtr1
3:1-13
Dtr1
Dtr1
3:14-17
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
3:18-29
Dtr1
Dtr1
4:1-24
Dtr1
Dtr1
4:25-28
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
4:29--31
Dtr2
Dtr2
4:32-40
Dtr1
Dtr1
4:41-49
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
5,6,7
Dtr1
Dtr1
8:1-18
Dtr1
Dtr1
8:19-20
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
9,10,11
Dtr1
Dtr1
12-25
Dtn
Dtr1
*
26:1-15
Dtn
Dtr1
*
26:16-19
Dtr1
Dtr1
27:1-4
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
27:5-7a
Dtr1
JE
*
27:7b-8
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
27:9-10
Dtr1
Dtr1
27:11-26
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
28:1-35
Dtr1
Dtr1
28:36-37
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
28:38-62
Dtr1
Dtr1
28:63-68
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
28:69
Dtr1
Dtr1
29:1-9
Dtr1
Dtr1
29:10-20
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
29:21-27
Dtr2
Dtr2
29:28
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
30:1-10
Dtr2
Dtr2
30:11-14
Dtr1
Dtr1
30:15-20
Dtr2
Dtr1
*
31:1-13
Dtr1
Dtr1
31:14-15
Dtn
JE
*
31:16-22
Dtr2
Dtr2
D: incorporated from independent sources
31:23
Dtn
JE
*
31:24-27
Dtr1
Dtr1
31:28-30
Dtr2
Dtr2
32:1-44
Dtr2
Dtr2
F and D: Song of Moses was an independent work added by Dtr2
32:45-47
Dtr1
Dtr1
32:48-52
R
P
*
33:1-29
Dtr1
Dtr1
Blessing of Moses was an independent work added by Dtr1
34:1a
Dtr1
JE
*
D: to "the top of Pisgah"
34:1b
Dtr1
P
*
D: "which is facing Jericho"
34:1c-4
Dtr1
JE
*
34:5a
J
JE
*
34:5b
J
P
*
34:6
J
JE
*
34:7
J
P
*
38:8-9
P
P
38:10
Dtr1
JE
*
38:11
Dtr1
Dtr2
*
Thursday, April 23, 2009
New Understandings of Old Books
In the comments to the last post about James Kugel, SS raises an interesting question: how does a contemporary reader understand older commentators who had a very different understanding of the origins of the Torah. Suppose a person believes that the Torah was written after Moses by multiple authors, later compiled and edited, and then interpreted in new ways by later interpreters, including the rabbis of the Talmud. And suppose the person believes the Torah is in some way divine. (There are lots of possible approaches here, all of which I am skipping over.) How should that person read and understand traditional commentators and halachic works (Talmud, midrashim, Rashi, Shulchan Aruch, etc.), all of which were written with a different understanding of the origins of the Torah, namely that God literally gave the Torah to Moses and the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai?
SS argues in his comment that these modern ideas undercut these traditional works and thus Orthodoxy. That is probably correct. But I am sure that people like James Kugel and Louis Jacobs believed in both the modern approach and the continuing relevance of these classical works. I think there are at least four ways in which we can read these classical texts, and some of these may even be relevant to Orthodox Jews with a modern scholarly appraoch to the Torah. Let's take counting the omer as an example.
In the most literal and narrow sense, the texts implicitly assume that one should do a mitzvah because God told the Jews on Mt. Sinai to do the mitzvah. At that narrow level, that claim would be rendered false by modern scholarship.
At a slightly broader level, the texts explain how to do a mitzvah. For example, the Talmud in Menachot 65b and 66a contains a detailed discussion of when to start counting the omer. More specifically, it discusses whether the "day after shabbat" (when counting the omer beings) refers to the day after Passover or the day after Saturday. The Talmud concludes it is the former. Even if one did not literally believe in the traditional understanding of TMS, one could still find this discussion and this conclusion useful. That is when the Jewish community starts counting the omer.
At an even broader level, one could find the discussion of a mitzvah valuable on its own, regardless of the theologically assumptions behind the discussion. For example, the kabbalists derived the idea of using the 49 different combinations of the seven lower sefirot to correspond to the 49 days of omer counting. As a literal description of the metaphysical universe --- emanations of God and all that --- this is pretty kooky. But on a much more grounded and practical level, it is quite appealing to think about these combinations, and doing so certainly has the ability to enrich ones life and one's Judaism. (It certainly is sparking some interesting discussions at my house, as my 7-year-old and 5-year-old kids (and my wife and I) discuss the netzach of chesed (the endurance or persistence of kindness), the yesod of gevurah (the bonding of strength), all the other combinations, what they mean, and how they apply to our lives.) These discussions are interesting and informative, regardless of the fact that the 13th or 16th century Kabbalists and I have very different understandings of things.
And at a structural level, one could think about the relationship between the broader ideas behind the works and particular texts. The Talmudic rabbis were quite legalistic. The Talmud contains no discussion about why one should count the omer or what one would get out of the experience. The issue solely concerns a heated discussion with Boethusians over what day it starts. Rashi and Ramban both lock on to this technical legal argument.
The Zohar, however, is a much freer work. It has a complex allegory involving spiritual purity and sex. It notes that a woman counts seven days after her menstrual cycles, becomes spiritually pure, and then is sexually and spiritually reunited with her husband. During the exodus, the Hebrews were freed from slavery, became spiritually pure for seven weeks, and then were united in covenant with God. So (concludes the Zohar), during the counting of the omer, Jews reach higher spiritual levels, become spritually pure, and ultimately become reunited with God on Shavuot. The Zohar contains no technical legal discussions; only a metaphyical discussion answering the implicit question of why we count the omer.
Much later, Rabbi S.R. Hirsch was trying to explain to his 19th Century German-Jewish readers why they should continue to observe the mitzvot. He provides a rationalistic framework for the holidays, and uses omer-counting to link Passover and Shavout.
All of these texts were addressing the issues that were relevant at the time, and were relying on the weltanschaung of their times. The issue for us today (regardless of denomination) is whether we can understand particular mitzvot in light of our own understanding of Judaism, and seeing how previous generations dealt with these issues gives us some insight into a Jewish approaches to these issues, even if we would ask very different questions and come up with very different answers.
The bottom line is that there are lots of ways of approaching traditional texts, and many of these approaches are quite fruitful, even if we have different understandings of the origin of the Torah than the authors of those texts.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Kugel at the JTS
James Kugel, author of "How to Read the Bible," spoke last month at the Jewish Theological Seminary, on “Can The Torah Make Its Peace With Modern Biblical Scholarship?” A description of the lecture with a link to the podcast, as well as a list of all of JTS's podcasts are both online. This is a lecture worth listening to
Kugel is a well-respected academic Bible scholar who taught Bible at Harvard for many years. He believes in the documentary hypothesis and is an Orthodox Jew. Given current understandings of both, these two positions are seemingly inconsistent and difficult or impossible to reconcile. At his JTS lecture (unlike his recent YU lecture), Kugel directly addressed this issue and addresses this problem. His lecture was thoughtful, very funny, and largely persuasive.
As a preliminary matter, Kugel sharply separates between the original meaning of a text and the meaning ascribed to it by any particular interpretive community. He also distinguishes between the divinity of the text and its historical origins. Let's see how this all plays out.
Let's start with the history. Kugel argues (both in his book and in shorter form in this lecture) that the Torah was written after Moses by multiple authors with very different perspectives and was later compiled and edited into its current form. Its original understanding was very different than its later understanding. Starting two or three centuries before the common era, interpreters started reading an understanding the text in a very different way. They were implicitly and perhaps subconsciously guided by four interpretive principles:
1) The text is cryptic. The text might mean something other than its plain meaning. For example, "an eye for an eye" does not mean that, but instead means monetary compensation for an eye.
2) The texts is prophetic. The text might be referring to future events. For example, Esau and Edom refer to Rome.
3) The text is consistent. So apparent contradictions, like the first two creation stories, can and should be reconciled.
4) The text is divine.
Given these implicit interpretive assumptions, these early interpreters and the people that followed, like the rabbis of the Talmudic era, created a large set of interpretations, stories, and laws based on the Torah and other biblical texts, but with meanings that were very different than the original meanings of these texts.
Kugel gives an interesting example in his lecture that was not developed in his book: Rosh HaShanah. In the Torah, this holiday is never called Rosh Hashanah. It is called Yom HaTeruah or Zicaron HaTeruah (day of blowing the horn, or a remembrance of blowing the horn). Nowhere in the Torah, the rest of the Bible, the apocrypha, or pseudepigraphical works before about 100 CE is it referred to as either the beginning of the year (in fact it occurs in the seventh month) or a day of judgment. All ancient authors seemed to think of it as simply of a day of sacrifice accompanied by shofar blowing. It was not until the time of Philo and of the early Tannaim that Rosh HaShanah seemed to take on its current meaning. (Of course, it is possible that it always had this meaning and no one --- from the Torah to the Mishnah --- seemed to think this was important enough to mention.) Kugel understands these early interpreters to have expanded and modified the original meaning of Rosh HaShanah, and in doing so created what we now think of as Rosh HaShanah.
Thus, Kugel separates between the original meaning of text and the later meaning ascribed to it from about 200 BCE to 200 CE. He also separates between the history of the text and its divinity. The traditional Orthodox understanding is that these two are the same: the Torah is divine because God wrote it. Kugel breaks this historical link: the Torah was written by many people over a long period of time, but it is divine for other reasons.
The traditional Orthodox explanation, if accurate, would be compelling. That is, a neutral person who accepted the factual claim that God literally wrote the Torah would be compelled to accept its divinity. However, that Orthodox claim is difficult (impossible?) to maintain in light of modern bible scholarship.
Kugel takes a jujitsu-like approach to modern Bible scholarship. He fully accepts the historical claims of modern scholarship regarding the origins of the Torah, but then argues that these historical claims are irrelevant as far as the Torah's divinity is concerned. This approach has the advantage of not pitting a religious Jew against modern scholarship. (Since Galileo, religion has lost pretty much every battle it has fought from that very position.) However, the disadvantage of Kugel's approach is that the religious explanation is no longer compelling. That is, a neutral person who accepted the historical origins of the Torah may, but need not, accept its divinity.
And that requires a radical rethinking of much of Orthodoxy. A reasonable Jew might be Orthodox (as is Kugel) because one accepts the divinity of the Torah on some ground other than that God literally gave the Torah to Moses and the Jewish people. Given contemporary Orthodox mores, that is not a position one wants to discuss loudly at an oneg Shabbat.
Alternatively, one might note that if the early interpreters could understand the text of the Torah in a radically different way, then so can we. After all, we need not accept the four interpretive principles that Kugel notes. And we might be guided more strongly by some contemporary mores and traditional Jewish mores (both to varying degrees). In fact, if traditional Jewish ideas on (say) the social role of women or the status of gays and lesbians was based on social conditions that existed 2000 years ago, but no longer exist today, than a modification of these traditional beliefs would be warranted. All this moves one towards Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or some other type of Judaism. And given this understanding of the Torah, there is no compelling argument that one should remain Orthodox. One might, but one might believe that other branches of Judaism are better.
All this might ultimately be a very good development for Orthodoxy. Leading Jewish thinkers have often welcomed new scientific and scholarly developments, and Judaism has changed as a result. (Maimonides moved Judaism squarely into the middle ages.) But the Orthodox approach to recent scientific and scholarly developments (evolution, geology Bible scholarship, etc.) has often been to circle the wagons and counter-attack. This leads to silly spectacles, such as Orthodox rabbis with no training in evolutionary biology explaining why the central basis for much of contemporary biology is flawed. Detailed pseudo-explanations of reptilian DNA, or the bombardier beetle, or the evolution of the eye, followed by "QED --- the whole thing is worthless." This sort of thinking is not only poorly-reasoned, but it is more likely to backfire and turn people (especially more intelligent or knowledgeable people) away from Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy might be much better off it if focuses on its real strengths: a highly cohestive and caring community, links to tradition, seriousness and extensiveness of learning, etc. It is much worse off it it focuses on its weaknesses: disagreements with science, scholarship, and compelling and good contemporary social mores.
It seems to me that the proper response of Orthodox Jews to the compelling conclusions modern Bible scholarship is not to denegrate or dismiss them, but to develop a better theory of revelation. Kugel, to his credit, has done so.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Is the 'Blessing of the Sun' Joni Mitchell's favorite mitzvah?
There is a ritual mitzvah that occurs every 28 years: the blessing over the sun. And the time for this blessing is the morning of April 8. This is a mitzvah that is full of meaning and significance, easy to do especially with kids, and can take about 15 seconds. Here's what the blessing is, why it happens only every 28 years, and what people can get out of doing it, especially Joni Mitchell.
What is it?
Once every 28 years, we say the following blessing in the morning when we see the sun:
ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם עושה מעשה בראשית
Baruch atah Adonai, Eloheinu melech ha-olam, oseh ma-aseh vereishit
Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe who makes the works of Creation.
And then the shehechianu blessing.
This blessing is typically part of a longer service with other readings and prayers, but the core of the mitzvah is the blessing above. That's pretty much it. You can do it in about 15 seconds.
More info on Wikipedia, BlessTheSun.Org, and lots of other places.
Why 28 Years?
Let me clarify one point before beginning. The timing of this blessing is based on the assumption that the earth revolves around the sun in exactly 365 1/4 days and on the creation story in Genesis. The astronomy is off by a little bit (the earth travels around the sun in slightly less than 365 1/4 days), and the Genesis creation story is not science and not literally true, but it is still quite important as a story. This ritual is about meaning, not about scientific truth.
So here's how this works. According to the creation story, the sun was created on the fourth day, which is Tuesday evening / Wednesday day. In one year, the earth will return to the exact same place in its orbit, but it will now be rotated a quarter turn (since the solar year is 365 1/4 days). So it will take 4 complete years (with a leap year adjustment) before the earth returns to the same position in its orbit and the same side of the earth is facing the sun. However, it will then be a different day of the week. So it will take 7 groups of these 4-year cycles, or 28 years total, for (1) the earth to be back in the same place, (2) the earth to be facing the same way, and (3) the day of the week to be the same. At that point, we will have gone through three separate cycles multiple times and will be right back where we started.
The Purpose And Meaning Of This Mitzvah
Any mitzvah is more meaningful (and we are more likely to do it) if there is some purpose or significance associated with it. I would like to focus on two meaningful aspects of this blessing: the sun itself and astronomical cycles, and how they are important in our lives.
Blessings help us focus on things that are important. And this is a blessing over the sun because the sun itself is important. It generates heat and light, makes life possible, and keeps the earth in orbit.
And it is also superbly beautiful. Not only sunrises and sunsets, but also the details of the sun itself. For example, the picture above is a close up of a sunspot, which is a little area of high magnetic activity on the surface of the sun and is slightly cooler than the surrounding areas.
But the most striking aspect of this blessing is not its subject (the sun), but its frequency (once everyone 28 years). This long cycle is a combination of two astronomical cycles (days and years) and one cycle that people created (a seven-day week). And this long cycle gives us a great perspective on two aspects of time: cyclical time and linear time.
Cyclical time is time as an endless cycle: the sun rises and sets, the seasons come and go, and at the end of a cycle, we end up right back where we started. Joni Mitchell put it well in The Circle Game:And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We're captive on the carousel of time
We can't return we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game
But linear time involves a different understanding of time. Cycles may happen, but we move forward. We become (hopefully) better people. Society improves. We discover new knowledge and invent better inventions. This year is not the same as last year; it is better, and next year will be better still.
Joni Mitchell's song is not just about cyclical time, despite the chorus. It is also about linear time. The verses make clear that the boy the song is about is growing up and changing:Yesterday a child came out to wonder
Caught a dragonfly inside a jar
Fearful when the sky was full of thunder
And tearful at the falling of a star
Then the child moved ten times round the seasons
Skated over ten clear frozen streams
Words like 'when you're older' must appease him
And promises of someday make his dreams
Sixteen springs and sixteen summers gone now
Cartwheels turn to car wheels thru the town
And they tell him, Take your time, it wont be long now
Till you drag your feet to slow the circles down
So the years spin by and now the boy is twenty
Though his dreams have lost some grandeur coming true
Therell be new dreams, maybe better dreams and plenty
Before the last revolving year is through
This song (which always gets me a little teary) is a great juxtaposition of linear time in the verses, showing the child growing and changing, and cyclical time in chorus, with its circles and carousels and seasons.
And that's what I think the blessing over the sun is about.
We are all quite familiar with the shorter astronomical cycles --- days, months, and years --- and we use these cycles to break our lives into manageable and meaningful chunks of time. Thinking about our lives in a different unit of time gives a different perspective on our lives.
For example, Halley's Comet comes around every 76 years or so. It was visible in 1985 and 1986. I was 21 at the time, and I went out to the California desert with a few friends and some binoculars to see the comet. I realized then that the last time it came by (in 1910) I had not been born, and neither had my parents. Three of my four grandparents were small children. The next time Halley's comet will come by, in 2061, I will be 97, or more likely, dead. That was probably my one chance to see Halley's comet, and few people get to see it twice in their lifetime. But my children missed its appearance in 1986 (not having been born) but will be close to 60 when it rolls around again.
The blessing over the sun occurs every 28 years, a little more frequently than Halley's comet. It is not a once-in-a-lifetime event, but because of its timing, most of us will have the change to celebrate this blessing three or four times in our lives.
The last time it occurred was in 1981. I was in high school then, and I am now in my mid-40s. Since them I have changed in many ways, and have not changed in other ways. I have achieved some goals, made progress on others, and other goals have fallen by the wayside. I fortunately have kept in contact with most of my good friends, lost contact with others (although they are all seem to be showing up on Facebook now), and have made other friends. In 1981, I was moving forward in my life, and the earth and sun and the days of the week were moving forward in their cycles. It is now 28 years later. They have returned to where they were in 1981, but I have fortunately moved forward and am different and in many ways better.
The blessing over the sun will be back again in 2037. My wife and I will then be in our early 70s. My small children will be in their early 30s. I am not only looking back to 1981, but looking forward to 2037. And I will take the opportunity next week to recite the blessing with my wife and children, and in 2037, my children can look fondly back to that distant spring in 2009 when they were small and we all said the blessing over the sun.
I'm Back
I just got through several busy months at work. I should be blogging a little more regularly from now on.
Posts
