Shalom all! Our second day of Jewish History in Kitat Ez was great. It seems like the students are starting to get over their jet lag a bit. Many of them have created and started updating their blogs. Check 'em out from the list on the right. For the first part of class we did a general overview of issues affecting Israel. I think an important part of spending a semester here is learning about issues that Israel, as a Jewish state is dealing with. I gave a "brief" overview of our what's going on in the Golan (you can read about it in my earlier post "What the Heck is Going on up North")
After spending yesterday trying to deal with the "Jewish" part of "Jewish History", today we started to deal with the "History" part. We talked about the difficulty (and probably impossibility) of "unbiased history." The obvious problem is that everyone has an agenda, and often only the winner's account survives An account of America's westward expansion would sound quite different from the perspective of an Iroquois. But even if that weren't true we'd still have to deal with the fact that we never get to see all the evidence. The materials that have made it to our generation (be it art, architecture, texts, oral traditions, pottery shards or anything else you can think of) are all we have to go on. So even if a certain type of pottery was quite rare, if it's what we've seen the most in archaeological ruins (perhaps because it survived best for some reason) we might reasonably conclude it was a prominent form of pottery.
Having finally dealt with the name of the course (you can see why covering 4000 years in four months is so tough!), we had to decide where to begin. Even a much simpler question, such as "When does American history begin?" turns out to be quite complicated. Suggestions in class included Columbus's arrival, the Declaration of Independence and the Vikings brief visit years before Columbus. Instead of trying to give ourselves a firm start date we switched gears and tried to talk about which sources we might use to talk about the beginning of Jewish history. While there are a few external sources we'll refer to as often as possible (such as the Merneptah Stele, generally considered the earliest mention of "Israel" in external sources), the Tanakh is far and away the most detailed source for early Jewish history (and many aspects of Middle Eastern history in general).
It's convenient for our purpose that the Tanakh tells us so much, but is it history? Some students had no problem using the Tanakh as history, despite some of the supernatural events (or divinely caused events, depending on your point of view). Others felt like it's a religious text, and as such can't be used for any modern conception of "history". Most students fell somewhere in the middle, accepting that it's an important historical source, while taking much of what's written with a grain of salt.
To delve a little further into this question I had the students read the story of Noah (starts in Genesis 6 for those of you following along at home) in the Tanakh. Several of the students noted that the story seems to repeat itself, and it also has differing details in different sections. For example, is Noah supposed to bring two pair of animals or seven? There are hundreds of traditional explanations for these seeming discrepancies; perhaps the Tanakh is emphasizing certain points, or perhaps there should be two of some animals and seven of others. We then read the story divided in two (each verse is put in one version or the other, none of them are used twice) and I think some of the students were quite surprised to see that both versions end up being a pretty complete version of the story, something that certainly wouldn't happen with other books. The two versions also have different tones and somewhat different vocabulary. Given these facts the conclusion of most modern Westerners is that there are likely different authors, from different time periods and/or regions with one or more editor. This idea is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.
For traditional Jews this is unequivocally blasphemy. And, as you can imagine, considering the amount of time traditional Jewish scholars spent studying the Tanakh, they noticed many of the issues I've mentioned (along with numerous other seeming inconsistencies, such as the fact that Moses, who received the Torah from Hashem, dies before the end of the Tanakh) and found solutions that don't involve multiple authors. For Reform Jews, the documentary hypothesis is both wonderful and extraordinarily problematic. On the one hand, we can use our modern analytical skills on our holy text. We don't have to feel like we left our critical thinking skills outside. On the other hand, if the Tanakh has multiple authors, isn't it just some book?
Even though there's plenty of evidence pointing toward multiple authorship the case is hardly clear cut. In both Christianity and Islam Hashem's will is made known to the people through a central prophet/leader. In Judaism, by contrast, Hashem appears before all of Am Yisrael at Mt. Sinai (Genesis 19). If the Tanakh is merely a human creation, this story is problematic. At what point can you start telling the people that their parents or grandparents or great grandparents saw Hashem at Mt. Sinai? Wouldn't they wonder why their parents hadn't told them about it? Does this mean there's at least something divine about the Tanakh? Also, I feel confident we can all think of examples in which science was wrong (the world isn't flat, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, atoms are not the smallest particles, nutrition is more than balancing carbohydrates, proteins and fats). So while the modern, rational, scientific perspective is an important and useful one for thinking about the world, it may not be the final word.
After trying to think a bit about the origin of the Tanakh, I asked the students whether that really matters. Perhaps the mere fact that the brightest Jewish minds have been studying the Tanakh for thousands of years is enough? If so, would another book have served just as well? Also, there's other famous literature whose authorship is unclear. Homer may well have been compiled from many different sources. To this day there are arguments about who the real Shakespeare is. Their books have survived because they say something beautiful and/or true about the human condition. Is that enough to make a book holy? Does a central book need to be holy? Is it enough if it's divinely inspired but corrupted by inevitable human error? Does it matter?
After spending yesterday trying to deal with the "Jewish" part of "Jewish History", today we started to deal with the "History" part. We talked about the difficulty (and probably impossibility) of "unbiased history." The obvious problem is that everyone has an agenda, and often only the winner's account survives An account of America's westward expansion would sound quite different from the perspective of an Iroquois. But even if that weren't true we'd still have to deal with the fact that we never get to see all the evidence. The materials that have made it to our generation (be it art, architecture, texts, oral traditions, pottery shards or anything else you can think of) are all we have to go on. So even if a certain type of pottery was quite rare, if it's what we've seen the most in archaeological ruins (perhaps because it survived best for some reason) we might reasonably conclude it was a prominent form of pottery.
Having finally dealt with the name of the course (you can see why covering 4000 years in four months is so tough!), we had to decide where to begin. Even a much simpler question, such as "When does American history begin?" turns out to be quite complicated. Suggestions in class included Columbus's arrival, the Declaration of Independence and the Vikings brief visit years before Columbus. Instead of trying to give ourselves a firm start date we switched gears and tried to talk about which sources we might use to talk about the beginning of Jewish history. While there are a few external sources we'll refer to as often as possible (such as the Merneptah Stele, generally considered the earliest mention of "Israel" in external sources), the Tanakh is far and away the most detailed source for early Jewish history (and many aspects of Middle Eastern history in general).
It's convenient for our purpose that the Tanakh tells us so much, but is it history? Some students had no problem using the Tanakh as history, despite some of the supernatural events (or divinely caused events, depending on your point of view). Others felt like it's a religious text, and as such can't be used for any modern conception of "history". Most students fell somewhere in the middle, accepting that it's an important historical source, while taking much of what's written with a grain of salt.
To delve a little further into this question I had the students read the story of Noah (starts in Genesis 6 for those of you following along at home) in the Tanakh. Several of the students noted that the story seems to repeat itself, and it also has differing details in different sections. For example, is Noah supposed to bring two pair of animals or seven? There are hundreds of traditional explanations for these seeming discrepancies; perhaps the Tanakh is emphasizing certain points, or perhaps there should be two of some animals and seven of others. We then read the story divided in two (each verse is put in one version or the other, none of them are used twice) and I think some of the students were quite surprised to see that both versions end up being a pretty complete version of the story, something that certainly wouldn't happen with other books. The two versions also have different tones and somewhat different vocabulary. Given these facts the conclusion of most modern Westerners is that there are likely different authors, from different time periods and/or regions with one or more editor. This idea is known as the Documentary Hypothesis.
For traditional Jews this is unequivocally blasphemy. And, as you can imagine, considering the amount of time traditional Jewish scholars spent studying the Tanakh, they noticed many of the issues I've mentioned (along with numerous other seeming inconsistencies, such as the fact that Moses, who received the Torah from Hashem, dies before the end of the Tanakh) and found solutions that don't involve multiple authors. For Reform Jews, the documentary hypothesis is both wonderful and extraordinarily problematic. On the one hand, we can use our modern analytical skills on our holy text. We don't have to feel like we left our critical thinking skills outside. On the other hand, if the Tanakh has multiple authors, isn't it just some book?
Even though there's plenty of evidence pointing toward multiple authorship the case is hardly clear cut. In both Christianity and Islam Hashem's will is made known to the people through a central prophet/leader. In Judaism, by contrast, Hashem appears before all of Am Yisrael at Mt. Sinai (Genesis 19). If the Tanakh is merely a human creation, this story is problematic. At what point can you start telling the people that their parents or grandparents or great grandparents saw Hashem at Mt. Sinai? Wouldn't they wonder why their parents hadn't told them about it? Does this mean there's at least something divine about the Tanakh? Also, I feel confident we can all think of examples in which science was wrong (the world isn't flat, the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, atoms are not the smallest particles, nutrition is more than balancing carbohydrates, proteins and fats). So while the modern, rational, scientific perspective is an important and useful one for thinking about the world, it may not be the final word.
After trying to think a bit about the origin of the Tanakh, I asked the students whether that really matters. Perhaps the mere fact that the brightest Jewish minds have been studying the Tanakh for thousands of years is enough? If so, would another book have served just as well? Also, there's other famous literature whose authorship is unclear. Homer may well have been compiled from many different sources. To this day there are arguments about who the real Shakespeare is. Their books have survived because they say something beautiful and/or true about the human condition. Is that enough to make a book holy? Does a central book need to be holy? Is it enough if it's divinely inspired but corrupted by inevitable human error? Does it matter?
I really enjoyed our class' discussion/debate on the Tanakh, and whether or not its divinity or truth is important. Personally, I believe that it does not matter. God could have written every word, or it could have been some Rabbis thousands of years ago, and I think its would still be just as valuable and important. The morals and stories we get from the Tanakh are what matter, and they're the reason that it has been so deeply rooted in Judaism for so long. So regardless who wrote it, the lessons, stories, and tradition of the Tanakh matter and make it an important text, not its supposed divinity. So while I don't think that this means that we can just throw it away and use any random book, I do think that the value and significance lies in what we take away from the Tanakh, not necessarily where it came from.
ReplyDeleteI loved our class discussion today! I believe that the Tanakh is worth studying. It provides morals that people will listen to, and it gives something for people to believe in. That is what differentiates it from any other book. Yes any book could replace the Tanakh and provide new stories and morals, but it won't necessary provide the sense of devotion and belief one feels reading a religious text.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that the Documentary Hypothesis is both wonderful and conflicting. Citizens these days praise the freedom of speech and implementing their own, modern day thoughts into what was generated in a different, less advanced era. The aspect of creativity is what makes up the Tenakh. On the contrary, this situation of documentary hypothesis is conflicting. This holy book isn't just a book. It's a guide for Jewish civilians and the way to live life. When sources claim there are mistakes within the resource that is very praised, the Tenakh's viability is questioned. This then moves people to believe it shouldn't be praised anymore..
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Tanakh is a "guide to life." The Tanakh is full of mistakes and ways to fix them. Although most of the contents of the Tanakh are not applicable to modern everyday life, the morals and values engraved in the Tanakh are still relevant. While I believe that any book can have great morals and values, the Jewish people decided 2000 years ago to make the Tanakh the center of Judaism. As a Jew, I have chosen to follow the morals of the Tanakh. If I wanted to be Christian, for example, I would study the Bible. Same goes for any other religion. Even though some of the events in the Tanakh are questionable, the basic ideals are important and timeless and help guide every Jew into becoming the mensch they have the potential to be.
ReplyDeleteThe tanakh is a holy book that has been used for thousands of years in Jewish tradition. Whether or not it should be used as a history reference is a question that does not have a right answer. My opinion is that the tanakh should not be thrown out as a reference to Jewish History, but nor can we take every word of it as truth when talking about factual history.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed our discussion about whether or not the tanakh is history. It is something I've thought about before, and it was great to debate it. Ultimately, I think that it is made of stories mixed with real events, and even so it's morals and tradition should be followed.
ReplyDeleteThis post as well as our discussion in class were very interesting. The Tanakh was always taught to us in hebrew school as nothing but history, although many chose not to believe it's accuracy. The fact that people believe that for many stories two different events were combined blows my mind. Does this mean that two different events occured? For example for Noah and the ark, were there two seperate floods, even though HaShem promises never to flood the world again after each? Or is it simply two seperate takes on one event? Or, perhaps it's neither, and the story was made up. Even so, I believe that even if the Tanakh was fictional, it's morals and commandments still stand as guidelines for the jewish people.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed our class discussion on the Tanakh and the guidelines, morals, and principles that it has provided for many generations. I believe that not everything written in the Tanakh is rational and perfect and that the explanations behind the credibility of it is not always correct. However, I think that ultimately, the words that are written inside of this ancient text is more important than who wrote it, and how. The lessons and deeper messages that can be derived from the stories of the Tanakh are more significant than whether or not the actual instances of the stories are plausible.
ReplyDeleteThe question raised in class discussion as to whether or not the origins of the Tanakh matter, was quite interesting. Many people feel that if the Tanakh was not written by a single author or if it is not the word of God, than it cannot be accepted as Jewish "history". However, I personally feel that it does not matter whether or not the Tanakh is divine as it has already been ingrained into Jewish culture, tradition, and studies for hundreds of years. For this reason the Tanakh is an important text when studying Jewish history regardless of who wrote it. 💯💯
ReplyDelete