You give the Orthodox world too much credit by saying that they purposefully obfuscate the conversation, within the Yeshiva world this convo is basically just regarded as a non-starter, it is so far outside of the Overton window that it needs no obfuscation, it just never comes up.
Anyways, this has been a maaajor problem for me in accepting traditional interpretations and has led me to take either a post-modernist stance a la R. Shagar or to create what I call post-orthodoxy, where we can (hopefully) live commited Jewish lives without lying to ourselves about the origins of our religion.
In the yeshiva world (which I termed "the conservative approach") the attitude is denial of the historical evolution. However, I was referring to the more modern approaches, where I find that often when approaching this duality they tend to derail the conversation through obfuscation, and some never offer a coherent response (although some do as I noted)
Huh. This one isn’t as interesting as your others. Long on superficial generalities, short on details. The general gist of this article is that you have already declared victory on traditionalism because of the brilliance of the Enlightenment, and are gloating about what the “bruised and battered” religious people will do next. This comes along with a smattering of self-serving historical fiction to boost your esteem, along with dishing out strawmen as if they are cocktails. Needless to say, your victory whoop is quite premature as relates to Judaism. The traditionalists are growing by leaps and bounds, and definitely don’t appear bruised and battered. They don’t even know who you are, your scholars are, or your arguments, those primitive benighted knuckleheads. If the traditionalists are bruised and battered, they’re not showing it. There’s no doubt that they will last a lot longer than whatever culture you identify with.
(After reading this, I realize it sounds like it was written by AI. I promise you it wasn’t! I think I was trying to write like literature critic or something, and ended up sounding like AI. But I’m not going to rewrite it.)
This is meant as an overview of modern jewish theology, without the goal of demonstrating any claim, so yeah, its a different style.
Of course the traditional world is stronger than ever, and are not intimidated by any nontraditional scholars, and probably don't even know who they are, but when i wrote bruised and battered i wasnt referring to communities, rather to the theology and histiography which in my mind has been majorly discredited. It's not a victory whoop, it's a presentation of the academic challenge facing modern or recent jewish theologians such as sam lebens, yehudah gellman, yeshaya leibowitz, david weiss halivni, jonathan sacks, louis jacobs, tamar ross, david wolpe etc.
But anyways, appreciate your comments, and I try to respond, but sometimes it's just difficult to get around to, but don't take my silence as a concession :)
If you ever want to write a counterpost, I'll be happy to have you as a guest poster (with certain general parameters) (so far my posts have generated a decent readership)
The problem with these people you mention is that they want to grab the rope by both ends. They want acceptance of everything that is currently popular in academia, while still clinging to their Jewish traditions that by comparison seem utterly outdated. And they don't have the brilliance to strike a balance, like R' Hirsch. So you're right, they are indeed a bruised, battered, and sorry bunch whose feeble views will have no continuity.
You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't justify your condescending view of those who accept many things in academia. They don't think, like you do, that these are simply fads and they're falling for it, rather they think the evidence is compelling and therefore they respect academic findings. (For me personally, my attitude is largely that academia may be flawed, but it's the best we have, because it uses the best rational tools we have at our disposal, while tradition's authority is simply because it's tradition.) So I don't called them bruised and I dont give a s*** about continuity, a simply care if it's true, and sees i think for the most part their paradigm is true, it raises issues in defending a modern theology in light of these new understandings.
C'mon, let's be real. You're a reasonable fellow. Don't you think your article is highly condescending? Calling our tradition bruised and battered, talking about us like we're a bunch of clueless numbskulls, lost children? So why the criticism for condescension?
You are definitely right, they think the evidence is compelling and is not just a passing fad. But I believe that how one looks at evidence, and accordingly how much respect one has for academic findings and consensus, will depend on how compelling one finds the mesorah in the first place. The Esrog is a case in point. I think these people just tried to juggle too many balls, and dropped the ones that didn't look shiny and new.
Fair enough. I apologize if it came off that way, im still trying to figure out if my primary audience is chareidi like you, or more academic minded, and for now I'm bouncing between the two frames of reference. (Although TBH, I try to minimize maximalist views to allow for a more defensible (imho) Judaism.)
When I started writing this post the idea I had was not to establish the ahistoricity of a monolithic approach (which is why I didn't feel the need to provide any examples), rather to provide the traditionalists argument against modern innovation, which is primarily based on theological grounds as opposed to historical grounds (although obviously they therefore to defend their version of History), and to that ends I think the chareidi view is theologically compelling, but I understand that the other side is grappling with what they consider historically compelling.
"In the pre-Enlightenment world, there was little awareness of the differences between past and present, and as such, when approaching older texts or traditions they were almost invariably interpreted anachronistically with current presuppositions and paradigms. They were largely oblivious to innovation or evolution in the understanding of religious doctrines, therefore assuming that the cultural climate in which they lived was fairly representative of the way religious concepts were understood in the past."
"Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas" (1969), although this is a common theme in the study of history, particularly theological texts. Here's an excerpt from skinner referring to pre-enlightenment historians
> "There is a general assumption that the meaning of a given text is to be sought in what the text appears to mean to us, given our current preoccupations and paradigms of thought. The result is that texts from the past are interpreted as though the assumptions, concerns, and purposes of their authors were essentially the same as our own."
However, anyone with a familiarity of modern biblical scholarship (or even gush style) will see this play out in the understanding of every single passuk and maamar chazal.
I agree that Chazal were definitely doing that. The question is whether they did it consciously or unconsciously.
There are many drashos that only make sense if you understand the basic context and meaning, and then you can tell what chazal were coming to twist. Not knowing Tanach is a modern yeshivish phenomonon.
I was thinking more about the baalei hatosafos, and this went even more extreme during the era of polish yeshivos. And pointing to the greats is also not the best barometer, it's about what your typical yeshiva student or Talmud chacham was focused on.
Also I'm sure you read James kugels book where he basically writes an 1000 page book on this premise. Do you agree with his general interpretive approach (leaving source criticism to the side)?
I've read the whole book. I found it supremely unconvincing. His attitude is "we are so much smarter than them". He doesn't understand mythology or the way the ANE thought at all. He is guilty of what he accuses chazal of. (A great book on myth is "When they Severed Earth from Sky" that actually tries to get into the ANE mindset.)
You give the Orthodox world too much credit by saying that they purposefully obfuscate the conversation, within the Yeshiva world this convo is basically just regarded as a non-starter, it is so far outside of the Overton window that it needs no obfuscation, it just never comes up.
Anyways, this has been a maaajor problem for me in accepting traditional interpretations and has led me to take either a post-modernist stance a la R. Shagar or to create what I call post-orthodoxy, where we can (hopefully) live commited Jewish lives without lying to ourselves about the origins of our religion.
In the yeshiva world (which I termed "the conservative approach") the attitude is denial of the historical evolution. However, I was referring to the more modern approaches, where I find that often when approaching this duality they tend to derail the conversation through obfuscation, and some never offer a coherent response (although some do as I noted)
Huh. This one isn’t as interesting as your others. Long on superficial generalities, short on details. The general gist of this article is that you have already declared victory on traditionalism because of the brilliance of the Enlightenment, and are gloating about what the “bruised and battered” religious people will do next. This comes along with a smattering of self-serving historical fiction to boost your esteem, along with dishing out strawmen as if they are cocktails. Needless to say, your victory whoop is quite premature as relates to Judaism. The traditionalists are growing by leaps and bounds, and definitely don’t appear bruised and battered. They don’t even know who you are, your scholars are, or your arguments, those primitive benighted knuckleheads. If the traditionalists are bruised and battered, they’re not showing it. There’s no doubt that they will last a lot longer than whatever culture you identify with.
(After reading this, I realize it sounds like it was written by AI. I promise you it wasn’t! I think I was trying to write like literature critic or something, and ended up sounding like AI. But I’m not going to rewrite it.)
This is meant as an overview of modern jewish theology, without the goal of demonstrating any claim, so yeah, its a different style.
Of course the traditional world is stronger than ever, and are not intimidated by any nontraditional scholars, and probably don't even know who they are, but when i wrote bruised and battered i wasnt referring to communities, rather to the theology and histiography which in my mind has been majorly discredited. It's not a victory whoop, it's a presentation of the academic challenge facing modern or recent jewish theologians such as sam lebens, yehudah gellman, yeshaya leibowitz, david weiss halivni, jonathan sacks, louis jacobs, tamar ross, david wolpe etc.
But anyways, appreciate your comments, and I try to respond, but sometimes it's just difficult to get around to, but don't take my silence as a concession :)
If you ever want to write a counterpost, I'll be happy to have you as a guest poster (with certain general parameters) (so far my posts have generated a decent readership)
The problem with these people you mention is that they want to grab the rope by both ends. They want acceptance of everything that is currently popular in academia, while still clinging to their Jewish traditions that by comparison seem utterly outdated. And they don't have the brilliance to strike a balance, like R' Hirsch. So you're right, they are indeed a bruised, battered, and sorry bunch whose feeble views will have no continuity.
You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't justify your condescending view of those who accept many things in academia. They don't think, like you do, that these are simply fads and they're falling for it, rather they think the evidence is compelling and therefore they respect academic findings. (For me personally, my attitude is largely that academia may be flawed, but it's the best we have, because it uses the best rational tools we have at our disposal, while tradition's authority is simply because it's tradition.) So I don't called them bruised and I dont give a s*** about continuity, a simply care if it's true, and sees i think for the most part their paradigm is true, it raises issues in defending a modern theology in light of these new understandings.
C'mon, let's be real. You're a reasonable fellow. Don't you think your article is highly condescending? Calling our tradition bruised and battered, talking about us like we're a bunch of clueless numbskulls, lost children? So why the criticism for condescension?
You are definitely right, they think the evidence is compelling and is not just a passing fad. But I believe that how one looks at evidence, and accordingly how much respect one has for academic findings and consensus, will depend on how compelling one finds the mesorah in the first place. The Esrog is a case in point. I think these people just tried to juggle too many balls, and dropped the ones that didn't look shiny and new.
Fair enough. I apologize if it came off that way, im still trying to figure out if my primary audience is chareidi like you, or more academic minded, and for now I'm bouncing between the two frames of reference. (Although TBH, I try to minimize maximalist views to allow for a more defensible (imho) Judaism.)
When I started writing this post the idea I had was not to establish the ahistoricity of a monolithic approach (which is why I didn't feel the need to provide any examples), rather to provide the traditionalists argument against modern innovation, which is primarily based on theological grounds as opposed to historical grounds (although obviously they therefore to defend their version of History), and to that ends I think the chareidi view is theologically compelling, but I understand that the other side is grappling with what they consider historically compelling.
"In the pre-Enlightenment world, there was little awareness of the differences between past and present, and as such, when approaching older texts or traditions they were almost invariably interpreted anachronistically with current presuppositions and paradigms. They were largely oblivious to innovation or evolution in the understanding of religious doctrines, therefore assuming that the cultural climate in which they lived was fairly representative of the way religious concepts were understood in the past."
Citation needed.
See for example Quentin Skinner,
"Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas" (1969), although this is a common theme in the study of history, particularly theological texts. Here's an excerpt from skinner referring to pre-enlightenment historians
> "There is a general assumption that the meaning of a given text is to be sought in what the text appears to mean to us, given our current preoccupations and paradigms of thought. The result is that texts from the past are interpreted as though the assumptions, concerns, and purposes of their authors were essentially the same as our own."
However, anyone with a familiarity of modern biblical scholarship (or even gush style) will see this play out in the understanding of every single passuk and maamar chazal.
Thanks for the citation.
I agree that Chazal were definitely doing that. The question is whether they did it consciously or unconsciously.
There are many drashos that only make sense if you understand the basic context and meaning, and then you can tell what chazal were coming to twist. Not knowing Tanach is a modern yeshivish phenomonon.
I'm not sure about that. The impression I get is that since the rise of the Ashkenazi talmudists and halachists tanach fell to the wayside.
The Ashkenazi Rishonim all knew Tanach. Rashbam, Rashi, Ramban etc
I was thinking more about the baalei hatosafos, and this went even more extreme during the era of polish yeshivos. And pointing to the greats is also not the best barometer, it's about what your typical yeshiva student or Talmud chacham was focused on.
Also I'm sure you read James kugels book where he basically writes an 1000 page book on this premise. Do you agree with his general interpretive approach (leaving source criticism to the side)?
I've read the whole book. I found it supremely unconvincing. His attitude is "we are so much smarter than them". He doesn't understand mythology or the way the ANE thought at all. He is guilty of what he accuses chazal of. (A great book on myth is "When they Severed Earth from Sky" that actually tries to get into the ANE mindset.)
His thesis is not about ANE thought, it's primarily about the process of theological interpretation. Do you agree with that?