Q&A: Regarding the View of Bible Scholar Professor Benjamin Sommer
Regarding the View of Bible Scholar Professor Benjamin Sommer
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Recently an article about Professor Benjamin Sommer was published, which tells a bit about his doctrine regarding faith. There he says:
“There is a divine command, absolutely there is, and it was given in the great revelation at Mount Sinai — except that this command did not include every commandment. It only required us, the Jews, to love God and worship Him. How are we to do that? Three dots were attached to the giving of the command, which God left for us — and over thousands of years we human beings filled in those three dots, choosing and formulating the way by which we worship Him, and those are the Torah and commandments we know”
“God למעשה dictated to us — in that great revelation — one word: ‘Love Me.’ How will we love Him? For example, by putting on straps, parchment, and leather boxes (tefillin). For example, by refraining from cooking milk and meat together. These are commandments that we decided upon as a Jewish collective over thousands of years”
On the face of it, this sounds like nonsense to me, but I wanted to check with you — maybe there is some depth here that I’m missing?
Best regards,
Answer
I haven’t read his book, and it’s hard for me to believe that an intelligent person would write such nonsense. But the ways of apologetics are beyond me and twisted in ways I cannot fathom. If that really is what is written there, it is quite astonishing in its absurdity.
Discussion on Answer
Because there is no logic at all in the idea that people decided that putting leather straps on the arm is what was intended in order to realize the command to love God. I don’t think it’s all that complicated.
I also don’t see why, if one assumes there was a revelatory event at Sinai, no content at all was given there and everything was left open. Either there was such an event or there wasn’t, but if there was, how do you know there was no content to it?
I didn’t come to express a position on Sommer’s view, whether positive or negative. But I haven’t managed to understand what the great absurdity in it is. It may even be that the questioner and the respondent (Michi) do not agree at all about the nature of this absurdity. I’d be glad if someone could put their finger on the exact point for me. As it is said, “Answer a fool according to his folly.” Thanks.