Q&A: Biblical Pettiness
Biblical Pettiness.
Question
Hello to Rabbi Michi, may he live long and well.
I’m somewhat bothered by the way God is portrayed in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh): He appears in a fairly pagan way, wanting everyone to worship Him and then getting angry and taking revenge when that doesn’t happen—not to mention a certain pettiness that appears in the Bible’s stories.
By the way, since we’re talking about the Bible, what is the Rabbi’s approach to learning the Bible “at eye level”? How should one relate to the actions of its heroes? Did Isaac dig wells in order to water his flock and establish himself, or was he really repairing the husk of the Philistines?
2. In the fifth notebook you argue that there are no proofs for Judaism, only probability. On the other hand, you noted that we can never know whether such arguments are really good, because if we were Christians then we presumably wouldn’t see much in them—the intuition will always deceive us. A. Is there really no philosophical argument that can support the truth of a particular religion, such as the argument from testimony? Or perhaps the fact that Christianity and Islam accept the revelation at Mount Sinai gives Judaism some sort of advantage? B. Is the claim that God creates several religions, like different battalions in an army, plausible? C. Why assume that if we were Christians the arguments would not persuade us? If we were secular, then the philosophical proofs for God’s existence also would not persuade us either (perhaps)?
Answer
I have nothing to say about the pettiness. I have to say that it bothers me too. That is another reason why I do not deal much with the Bible. But perhaps that is also the reason it is written that way. It was intended for a different generation and different conceptions, not for our generation (runaway icon. Now the catapults will come).
In my understanding, the heroes of the Bible were people like you and me, and it should be studied at eye level. By the way, this has nothing to do with repairing husks. Ordinary human actions done for human needs can also be interpreted in Kabbalistic terms as various kinds of repairs. That could be true in our generation as well. The issue of husks is not relevant to learning the Bible at eye level. The antithesis of learning at eye level is interpretation that departs from the plain meaning and turns human actions with human motives into something else. Like certain interpretations of the saying of the Sages that David did not sin, and the like.
I did not say there are no good arguments for this or that religious belief. I think there are, especially regarding our own path, as explained in that notebook. What I said is that we have a bias because of the place in which we live and grow up. On the one hand, a person should try to overcome that and examine things objectively; on the other hand, he should be aware of it, and therefore focus on his own path rather than criticizing others (such as various critiques of Christianity and so on, which almost always strike me as foolish and childish).
Discussion on Answer
Hello and blessings, honored Rabbi.
Could you please explain a bit more about your position regarding the place the Bible occupies in Judaism in our generation? Because in your previous answer to Yosifon it seems that there are parts of the Bible (or at least expressions) that are not suitable for our generation. If so, what is suitable and what is not? Is it only certain expressions that are not compatible with the modern spirit today that one can shrug off (to some extent), or also commandments that seem “primitive”?
And unrelated to the previous paragraph, I wanted to ask how the Torah story of Noah’s Ark “fits into” the Rabbi’s worldview? (That is, according to the neo-Darwinian outlook.) Since there are no known findings of a flood that swept over the entire world a few thousand years ago to the point that the mountain peaks disappeared (is that even physically possible?).
Many thanks for all the enlightening answers and for the willingness to discuss every question. May there be many like you among Israel!!!
Hello Chaim.
I wrote here my opinion about studying the Bible (not about the Bible itself) in our time. In my view there is not much value in studying it, at least nowadays, for many reasons. I added that it is possible that in the past it was more suitable (although the fact is that even today quite a few people do find value and meaning in it).
The term “shrug off” is too strong. I am too insignificant to judge the Bible. What I am saying is that the style of the prophet is adapted to his listeners (“no two prophets prophesy in the same style”), and therefore it is possible that there are listeners to whom this does not speak, at least not some of the prophecies.
As for changing Jewish law, the situation is different, because there there are technical limitations of authority. Therefore each question has to be discussed on its own merits. In the trilogy I am currently working on there is a detailed discussion of changes in Jewish law.
As for the Flood and Noah’s Ark, search here on the site. There have been several discussions, and there are interesting references and interesting lines of reasoning.
Chaim, regarding the Flood—you can contact me and I’ll send you part of an article of mine on the subject. Regarding biblical pettiness—it should be remembered that we judge the Bible in light of later theological development (which came because of it!). If we judge it in light of the religious situation that preceded it, things will become entirely different. The Bible is a kind of document intended to change, bend, and balance the pagan theology that was then far more widespread than we imagine. Paganism was a worldview, solid as science, viral and contagious like a smartphone. When you read it that way, you take these expressions in proportion. It is as clear as day, for example, that divine wrath is not like ours: “Why does the Lord always first turn to Abraham or Moses to express His anger? Why does He not act immediately? According to Ezekiel 22:23–31, the Lord in fact wants the prophets to oppose His angry plans. In any case, the prophets defer divine punishment with a not insignificant degree of success. If God’s anger had been as great as He claimed, Moses’ prayer would not have succeeded.” So here we have an important statement that, more than it seeks to teach about divine caprice, is meant to give incomprehensible power and responsibility into human hands. In the pagan world, you could not even imagine arguing with the gods. They are uncontrollable and unpredictable like a pit bull. Alternatively, above them stands an impersonal and transcendent authority with which communication is impossible. Here is another quote from that very important book, which elaborates on all this (and it is remarkably readable and fascinating), The Personality of God by Yohanan Muffs: “Truth be told, pagan deities are not always superhuman. There are gods less human than mortals, at times to the point of embarrassment. By contrast, the humanity of the biblical God is an expression of His superiority. Although it sometimes suffers from excessive divine lordliness (which does not suit a bourgeois deity), this anthropomorphic deity is generally a model of human excellence, a kind of primordial man (Urmensch) as compared with the superman (Übermensch), the second type of pagan anthropomorphism. As we have shown, Israel’s adoption by God and His entering into a covenant with them certainly illustrate the extra-humanity of His character. Another such illustration is His wrath, of the kind that appears in a betrayed lover. Such anger, which ostensibly does not suit the divine at all, is in fact the clearest hallmark of human dignity.” And all that quotation was worth it to me just for the sharp phrase: “a bourgeois deity.” Wow, how fitting that is for some of the synagogues I know. They’re good for completing a minyan, to stop the itch every religious person feels three times a day. So I went in and scratched out a prayer, flipped through Olam Katan and another ad for some ulpana called Emunah, “kind of cute actually,” and I go back to being its bourgeois neo-Orthodox self. But if I was looking for the living, vibrant divinity, the one you can cry out to and weep before—if I believe there is continuity between the God of the Bible, the God of Tent of Meeting, and our little sanctuaries—then I will certainly have to wear out my feet walking to a different minyan. I labored and found. (And whoever reads the charged afterword in The Personality of God, written masterfully by Professor Israel Knohl, will find this tension I spoke of alive, kicking, and very much present among the nobility of religious Bible scholars today.)
I’m transferring here a response from Moshe:
I’m somewhat bothered by the way God is portrayed in the Bible: He appears in a fairly pagan way, wanting everyone to worship Him and then getting angry and taking revenge when that doesn’t happen
Response to Yosifon: Have you ever seen any other pagan deity that takes revenge on those who do not worship it?
Bottom line, God made a covenant with us—an agreement—and not only with us but with our ancestors and our descendants forever, that we should worship no other god besides Him. Clear?
1b. What is the Rabbi’s approach to the Bible “at eye level”? How should one relate to the actions of its heroes? Did Isaac dig wells in order to water his flock and establish himself, or was he really repairing the husk of the Philistines?
Response: In my opinion, I did not find the connection between those wells and the husk of the Philistines, or how digging them repairs the husk of the Philistines. But logically, a person digs a well because he needs water for himself and his flock. So it does not seem to me that he repaired the husk of the Philistines. It reminds me of the Christians who believe that Jesus’ death repairs the sins of all generations of his believers—it’s the same style. And by the way, if he repaired their husk, then what was their sin that we inherited them? And who said that gentiles are forbidden to worship idols?
In the fifth notebook you argue that there are no proofs for Judaism, only probability; on the other hand, you noted that we can never know whether these arguments are good, because if we were Christians then would we not see something substantial in them? Intuition will always deceive us:
2a. Is there really no philosophical argument that can support the truth of a certain religion, such as the argument from testimony? Or perhaps the fact that Christianity and Islam accept the revelation at Mount Sinai gives Judaism some sort of advantage?
Response: First of all, let’s start with the fact that Christianity is false, and the Muslim religion and Islam are certainly false. Because Christianity distorted the Torah by turning it into something secondary and old, and invented a new Torah and called it the New Testament, contradicting the agreements in the first Torah.
And Islam also distorted our Torah and changed it as they wished in order to emphasize that they are the ones desired in God’s eyes, and not our forefather Jacob and not our forefather Isaac. Therefore Muhammad is a false prophet and his teaching is false. Plain and simple. And if, God forbid, we build our faith on lies, what are we worth?
Conclusion: Judaism exists by virtue of keeping the covenant with God. It seems to me that right now we are in a state of the hiding of the divine face, and we absolutely, absolutely, absolutely need a Sanhedrin that will make some precise corrections in the Jewish laws that require clarification and rapid change… and in this way we will become more beloved to God, and His providence over us will increase, and that will bring unity, which is a great blessing—and just as God is one, so the Jewish people should be one (united). Pray that we should have a Sanhedrin.
And the moment there is a Sanhedrin, all good will come upon us, and the Messiah will come quickly, because that is what is written in the Torah: when we return to the commandments according to the Torah—without the changes we made over time because of one reason or another—then that will be the proof that there is a God and His Torah is true, as it is written: “On that day the Lord shall be one and His name one.” And that is a great thing. And if you notice, every religion that is based on the Torah survives—for one simple reason: that indirectly they believe in the God who created the world, and that is already a great merit for them!
2b. Is the claim that God creates several religions, like different battalions in an army, plausible?
Response: It is not plausible. And from the outset Jesus was a Jew and behaved according to Jewish law…. And similarly Ishmael followed the custom of Abraham, but over time they drifted away and believed in and associated additional idols. And today they believe in God and in Muhammad His prophet, and I have already proved that Muhammad was a false prophet because he distorted our Torah.
On the other hand, to be precise, we should note that if God chose us from among all the nations, then He leaves the other nations to live if they keep rational commandments between man and man. And that does not mean that God creates several religions. There is only one law, and that is the Torah, but only the Jews will carry the Torah, not the gentiles and not the other nations.
2c. Why assume that if we were Christians the arguments would not persuade us? If we were secular, then the philosophical proofs for God’s existence also would not persuade us either (perhaps)? To understand that there is a God, it does not matter what kind of person you are or to what sector you belong. Logically, it is enough that you look at the creation that God created—you must grasp that there is someone who created everything and oversees the world. And if you are blind, use your sense of touch and understand that if there are things in the world then someone created everything, because nothing creates itself, and there must be someone who created everything, and no one created Him, because one can always ask who created the creator who created the creator before him… and therefore there must be one Creator, wise and unlimited in His abilities, and He is one and whole, pure and holy, and loves to bestow good, and therefore created the world and placed us in it. And we Jews must keep His Torahs. And the gentiles must keep rational commandments on the basis of logic, because they did not receive the Torah.