Deconstructing Tradition: A Skeptic’s Guide to Jewish Thought

Understanding the Development of Judaism Through Critical Analysis and Comparative Methodology

Judaism has produced an enormous volume of works written by many of its most brilliant minds throughout history. From Tanakh, to Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, through the works of the Rishonim, Achronim, and down to modern day authors, it truly presents a formidable framework and paradigm with which to reckon. Included in this massive library are the fundamental claims and beliefs of Judaism. However, when skeptics approach these subjects, the a priori assumption is that they are not reliable until demonstrated otherwise, and we ought to dismiss their claims without proper evidence. The oft-repeated cliches include “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence,” “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” “A modern mind ought not to be bound to the ancient primitive understanding of the world,” “There are thousands of gods and religions which were believed throughout history, what makes you think you got the right one”, etc.

While these statements may very well be logical and worth considering, for someone who thinks within the paradigm of religion they often run into a brick wall. This is not only due to cultural conditioning and various biases; a big component can be that to dismiss the works of innumerous giants throughout thousands of years seems to strain credulity. Human nature is to naturally trust one another, and this is especially compounded when dealing with figures of great respect such as the Nevi’im, chazal, the rishonim, and other gedolim. “Do you think Yeshayahu was lying when he claimed to have spoken with Hashem, or the Mishna simply fabricated the stories about the Nissim in the Beis Hamikdash, or the Arizal simply pulled his complex kabbalistic constructs out of a hat?!”, challenges the believer.

This idea can take the form of several arguments, from the classic Kuzari proof, to arguments from authority, to trusting Daas Torah. However, I am not addressing any particular argument directly, rather the general idea of reliability which is being challenged by skeptics. Many people simply refuse to believe that there were large conspiracies to invent ideas out of whole cloth, or even that individual people were conmen and fabricated stories or religious claims. Additionally, the incredible amount of detail within the corpus of Judaic texts seem to belie something real and credible, for where do the pratei pratim of halakha, aggada, and others topics discussed originate from. Some even point to the fact that many mitzvos are very difficult to keep, and it is illogical to say that someone at some point in history simply created them. This raises a major issue, for how dare some 21^st century ‘academic’ or ‘skeptic’ simply dismiss all these people and the tremendous history behind it?

The skeptic will retort that the same can be said of other religions, or that the believer is not bothered by the same issue when confronted with modern scholarship which presents various challenges to traditional beliefs. There is a lot to unpack in these responses, but they still don’t solve the issue. It may present a paradox, as the same approach seems to confirm other truth claims which are mutually exclusive, but it nevertheless fails to actually explain anything, and the development of any such idea remains a mystery. This is problematic first of all because the question itself deserves an answer, and also most people when presented with such a paradox will opt for their current paradigm as the default option. What’s necessary is a deconstruction of the paradigm itself to be able to begin any proper evaluation of the fundamental claims. Only than can we determine if it indeed rests on a solid basis or not.

(This post will not necessarily address the individual arguments mentioned above, I am rather attempting to present a paradigm through which the skeptic can understand the development of a tradition.)

In order to better understand how traditions and theologies develop, I would first like to turn to several specific examples from others religions which I assume the believer agrees to their falsehood. The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Richard Dawkins attacking the Catholic Church:

In 1950, Pope Pius XII (unkindly known as ‘Hitler’s Pope’) promulgated the dogma that Jesus’ mother Mary, on her death, was bodily – i.e. not merely spiritually – lifted up into heaven. ‘Bodily’ means that if you’d looked in her grave, you’d have found it empty. The Pope’s reasoning had absolutely nothing to do with evidence. He cited 1 Corinthians 15:54: ‘then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory’. The saying makes no mention of Mary. There is not the smallest reason to suppose the author of the epistle had Mary in mind. We see again the typical theological trick of taking a text and ‘interpreting’ it in a way that just might have some vague, symbolic, hand-waving connection with something else. Presumably, too, like so many religious beliefs, Pius XII’s dogma was at least partly based on a feeling of what would be fitting for one so holy as Mary. But the Pope’s main motivation, according to Dr Kenneth Howell, director of the John Henry Cardinal Newman Institute of Catholic Thought, University of Illinois, came from a different meaning of what was fitting. The world of 1950 was recovering from the devastation of the Second World War and desperately needed the balm of a healing message. Howell quotes the Pope’s words, then gives his own interpretation:

Pius XII clearly expresses his hope that meditation on Mary’s assumption will lead the faithful to a greater awareness of our common dignity as the human family... What would impel human beings to keep their eyes fixed on their supernatural end and to desire the salvation of their fellow human beings? Mary’s assumption was a reminder of, and impetus toward, greater respect for humanity because the Assumption cannot be separated from the rest of Mary’s earthly life.

It’s fascinating to see how the theological mind works: in particular, the lack of interest in – indeed, the contempt for – factual evidence. Never mind whether there’s any evidence that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven; it would be good for people to believe she was. It isn’t that theologians deliberately tell untruths. It’s as though they just don’t care about truth; aren’t interested in truth; don’t know what truth even means; demote truth to negligible status compared with other considerations, such as symbolic or mythic significance. And yet at the same time, Catholics are compelled to believe these made-up ‘truths’ – compelled in no uncertain terms. Even before Pius XII promulgated the Assumption as a dogma, the eighteenth-century Pope Benedict XIV declared the Assumption of Mary to be ‘a probable opinion which to deny were impious and blasphemous’. If to deny a ‘probable opinion’ is ‘impious and blasphemous’, you can imagine the penalty for denying an infallible dogma! Once again, note the brazen confidence with which religious leaders assert ‘facts’ which even they admit are supported by no historical evidence at all.... Are professors of theology really paid to do this kind of thing?

Although we can agree that the Pope had no justification from which to claim that Mary indeed ascended to Heaven alive, it seems difficult to say that he is an outright liar with the impudence to invent stories outright. His reasoning can be properly understood if we place ourselves in his paradigm, using the methodology and assumptions he used. For a Catholic mind, Mother Mary is theologically an extremely significant figure, almost a goddess in her own right. The notion of her death seems rather uncomfortable, and given the status she retains, it seems more plausible than not that she rose above Original Sin and became one with God at least on the level of Adam before he sinned. The idea of holy men and women ascending to heaven alive is already attested to in the Book of Enoch regarding Chanoch, and discussed is already mentioned in the Talmud regarding various figures. True, we have no evidence through observation with which to base this claim, but a spiritual epistemology, one which is sensitive to a theological worldview can easily come to this conclusion. Indeed, when reading the passage in Corinthians about death being swallowed by victory, anyone well trained in exegesis will connect the common theme as understand this verse as confirming this idea.

Does this make the Pope correct? Absolutely not! Does it either confirm this tradition or lend any more credence to Catholicism? Not at all. But it demonstrates a very important aspect of human thought: A conclusion only has value relative to the methodology that has produced, regardless of the stature of the originator.

Lest one say that this only demonstrates the fallaciousness of one particular kind of thinking, namely theology, it is worth mentioning other entire methodologies which are wholly discredited. I shall name two other such methodologies, one is what many scholars title historiography, which means a people’s history about themsleves which is a mixture or myth and fact, legend and story, and the other is what was known in the ancient world as natural philosophy, which was used to develop sciences such as physics, medicine, cosmology and others, but were grossly mistaken on nearly all of their findings as demonstrated by modern science.

Every methodology throughout history is worthy of its own analysis and understanding, and these topics are explored in great length in the modern fields of history, sociology, and anthropology. Some are related to specific cognitive biases, while others are more dependent on cultural contexts and external influences.

When one looks at Judaism as an outsider, there is a whole different paradigm with which to view everything. It is a complex web of ideas developed via internal and external influences within their respective cultural contexts. Some of the methodologies which are common are ancient myth, historiography, and etiology, medieval rationalism, various mystical and occult belief systems, theological, philosophical and ethical movements and ideas, and these were all incorporated into the modern version of Judaism as we know it today. The narratives of the Patriarchs, the Exodus and the Sinai Revelation can be seen as etiologies to describe the place of Israel on the ancient near east stage and to provide context for the covenant theology in Israelite religion, the prophecies of Yeshayahu can be seen as a brilliant theological imagination conveying his perception rooted in mystical experience and personal philosophy, the teachings of Rabbi Akiva can be seen as attempts at justification and delineation of second temple traditions adapted into very different circumstances, and modern day grand statements by Meilech Biderman are rooted in various kabbalistic, mussar, and other traditions, seen through the lens of his eccentric personality and contemporary worldview.

I haven’t yet offered any positive evidence to claim that any aspect of Judaism is a product of these factors, but that does not belie the point. The default position of a historical analysis of Judaism should be one of deconstruction of its grand narratives and unweaving of its masterful theological edifices, not one of blindly accepting the particular value laden interpretation in which one was raised.

This is our right to remain skeptical. To do otherwise may seem easier, but it is simply intellectual laziness, and to use it to support a religious paradigm is merely an argument from ignorance. Hopefully we will be able to explore some of these ideas in future posts, but I cannot possibly include even a drop in the bucket of what is discussed among scholars. There are countless works that were published to introduce the general public to what scholars have discovered, from How to Read the Bible by James Kugel, to Rabbinic Judaism: The Documentary History of Its Formative age by Jacob Neusner, to Origins of Kabbalah by Gershon Scholem. Each of their claims must be analyzed on their own, but this is no excuse to simply throw one’s hands in the air and accept the narrative is it is presented.

Note: However, I would like to add that to think critically does not mean to dismiss the value of these traditional ideas or to condemn those that propagated them, rather it simply means to understand the context and build up through evidence how and why these ideas came to be. We can also attempt to evaluate the ideas themselves in terms of evidence and see can be established as a literal truth, and if they are not we can attempt to understand the meaning they were trying to convey and decide for ourselves if the messages are relevant in our times. Indeed, some of the greatest historians of Judaism stem from Zechariah Frankel’s Positive-Historical approach. (Many mistakenly think that biblical criticism means to criticize the bible, and therefore religion. It simply means the critical analysis of the bible, and the same goes for other fields.)