Continued Convo from the Pan(en)theism Thread on the Historical Veracity of Torah

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Avi

And this was exactly the point I was trying to make, still searching for relevent scripture.

How do you understand the argument between God and Abraham in Genesis 17-33?

Originally Posted by Avi

I do not believe it is historically accurate. I believe it is allegory.

But you are suggesting that it, an extremely late text relative to Abraham's life, alludes to something that is historically accurate.

I do not see any contradiction. I believe in rationalism and am skeptical of miracles. Where is the contradiction ?

Because your evidence for Abraham's beliefs begins with a midrash, begins with something that, if it had survived history in some relevant form, would have had to do so orally. This is no different than Orthodox arguments for an oral Torah maintained since Moses. This story, if it were that old, would have had to have survived for so many generations, through various shifts in Jewish thought, most of which don't appear to accept a non-anthropomorphic God. We do see over that time a shift away from idolatry, but even by the time we get to targum onkelos, a rabbinic text, we don't see a non-anthropomorphic God to the degree that you would like. God is still active and involved. The difference is that references to actual physical anthropomorphisms are removed.

I think that rejection of anthropomorphism and corporeality were the most significant advances of Judaism at that time. And I am not alone, Maimonides thought of that before me.

Name-dropping doesn't make your argument stronger, and you're dropping the name of someone who had many ideas that you would strongly disagree with. If Rambam's name is as persuasive as you suggest it is then you should also be inclined to accept all of the 13 articles of faith including Torah m'sinai.

The latter part of the Avrahamic stories, which Friedman calls: wife / sister, birth of Issac, Hagar and Ishmael, Abraham and Abimelech, and the binding of Issac - are all believed to be written by the E source.

Okay, but even if you accept Documentary Hypothesis, there are many non-E stories such as Abraham's argument with God. Why would you assume that E is the most accurate portrayal of the historical Abraham? Even if we accept E, we still have a Creator who communicates with man, albeit via angels and dreams. I think you're demonstrating confirmation bias.

[pohaikawahine]

continue bookmark from the convo from the Pan(en)theism Thread on the Historical Veracity of Torah ....... I have little to contribute, but much to learn .... mahalo nui, poh

[Avi]

Originally Posted by dauer

How do you understand the argument between God and Abraham in Genesis 17-33?

Do you mean 17.1-27 (this is the numbering in my JPS) ? This is an anthropomorphic section of Avraham, not the part I am talking about.

But you are suggesting that it, an extremely late text relative to Abraham's life, alludes to something that is historically accurate.

I am not saying that is historically accurate.

Because your evidence for Abraham's beliefs begins with a midrash, begins with something that, if it had survived history in some relevant form, would have had to do so orally. This is no different than Orthodox arguments for an oral Torah maintained since Moses.

As we discussed earlier, some Orthodox view the Torah with layers of metaphor and I would agree with you about those. Some are also literalists, I disagree with them.

This story, if it were that old, would have had to have survived for so many generations, through various shifts in Jewish thought, most of which don't appear to accept a non-anthropomorphic God.

Right, I agree this portion is anthropomorhic.

We do see over that time a shift away from idolatry, but even by the time we get to targum onkelos, a rabbinic text, we don't see a non-anthropomorphic God to the degree that you would like.

That is right, since I believe in a pantheistic or panentheistic G-d, they have not come around to the degree that I like until perhaps Spinoza.

God is still active and involved. The difference is that references to actual physical anthropomorphisms are removed.

Good, they were moving in the right direction.

Name-dropping doesn't make your argument stronger, and you're dropping the name of someone who had many ideas that you would strongly disagree with. If Rambam's name is as persuasive as you suggest it is then you should also be inclined to accept all of the 13 articles of faith including Torah m'sinai.

Right, I disagree with many of Maimonides ideas. But I very much like his ideas about non-anthropomorphism (Principle #3). And of course I am not compelled to believe the others, which do not make sense to me. As you know, Dauer, the reform tradition challenges dogma.

Okay, but even if you accept Documentary Hypothesis, there are many non-E stories such as Abraham's argument with God. Why would you assume that E is the most accurate portrayal of the historical Abraham? Even if we accept E, we still have a Creator who communicates with man, albeit via angels and dreams. I think you're demonstrating confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias, perhaps some fairness in that comment. If I try to be more objective, I might have to move further toward atheism. I need to evaluate that thought moving forward.

By the way, why did you move this thread from Belief and Spirituality over here to Judaism ? It may result in an interesting parallelism.

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Avi

Do you mean 17.1-27 (this is the numbering in my JPS) ? This is an anthropomorphic section of Avraham, not the part I am talking about.

Sorry, I left out the chapter number. It's 18:17-33. What enables you to write this off as not causing conflict for your assertion about Abraham's beliefs?

I am not saying that is historically accurate.

Then why do you cite the event frequently when you speak to your beliefs about what Abraham believed?

As we discussed earlier, some Orthodox view the Torah with layers of metaphor and I would agree with you about those. Some are also literalists, I disagree with them.

I don't think you understand what I'm referring to. I'm speaking specifically to the idea that an oral Torah was given alongside the written one so that halachah could be applied appropriately to each generation. For the midrash you've kept citing to support your argument you'd have to accept a line of reasoning that supports a similar idea.

Right, I agree this portion is anthropomorhic.

I think you've entirely missed the direction of my argument. I'm talking about the midrash about Abraham smashing idols that you refer to when speaking about Abraham's beliefs and how miraculous it would have had to have been for it to have survived from the time that Abraham actually lived and how much a belief in the veracity of that midrash parallels Orthodox arguments for an oral Torah.

That is right, since I believe in a pantheistic or panentheistic G-d, they have not come around to the degree that I like until perhaps Spinoza.

If not, then what specifically do you suggest that Abraham believed and based on what? Previously you've stated that he believed in a non-corporeal, non-anthropomorphic God and that you are looking for scriptural basis for that belief. I presented a text in which Abraham and God have a long conversation because it's scriptural evidence for the contrary.

Right, I disagree with many of Maimonides ideas. But I very much like his ideas about non-anthropomorphism (Principle #3). And of course I am not compelled to believe the others, which do not make sense to me. As you know, Dauer, the reform tradition challenges dogma.

I'm quite aware of that, which is part of why your citing Rambam on this matter, and your position about Abraham's actual beliefs, confuses me. You are arguing a position about history, not ahistory, that doesn't agree with the historical record, by picking and choosing your sources, including some that are pretty darn late.

If a Reform argument is going to make sense then it's gotta be a little more than picking and choosing ideas from various places. Usually I think Reform arguments are a bit more rigorous than that. But as far as I can tell all you've been doing is citing whatever sources seem at all to allow for your belief and ignoring any others. Were you making an ahistorical case I wouldn't have any issue with that, but you're speaking to what you believe Abraham's beliefs actually were.

Confirmation bias, perhaps some fairness in that comment. If I try to be more objective, I might have to move further toward atheism.

At least then your system of beliefs would have more integrity. I think you get caught up too much in a certain type of literalism, in which you're looking for sacred text to confirm actual history, but specifically, a history that conforms with what you'd most like. It's something that's particularly Jewish, in a sense. It's the reading into Torah of one's own beliefs, connecting it back to Torah. But once you get past a certain developmental threshold, which is to say, you've rejected the notion that Torah is some particularly reliable history document, it seems to me that it would be better to accept that what you are dealing with is, at best, a subjective history of the Jewish people as retold and reedited by many generations before reaching its final form and still subject to much reinterpretation after that. This is to say nothing of religious or spiritual significance, only historical veracity.

For you it seems like it is important, in order to be both rational and Jewish, that what you believe can in some way, truly, literally, be connected back to Abraham, rather than as something that one could potentially connect back to him by reading it into stories about him. Is that accurate or am I entirely off?

By the way, why did you move this thread from Belief and Spirituality over here to Judaism ? It may result in an interesting parallelism.

Because in a discussion about pantheism and panentheism that was moving in a very different direction we were discussing the validity of Torah as an historical document and the nature of Abraham's beliefs. Prior to this post I felt like my posts were disrupting the flow of that thread so I placed this response in a new thread here.

-- Dauer

[Avi]

Originally Posted by dauer

Sorry, I left out the chapter number. It's 18:17-33. What enables you to write this off as not causing conflict for your assertion about Abraham's beliefs?

According to Richard Elliott Friedman, this section is all authored by "J", highly anthropomorphic.

Then why do you cite the event frequently when you speak to your beliefs about what Abraham believed?

Because the idea of a non-anthropomorophic, non-corporeal G-d is one of the most important in Judaism.

I don't think you understand what I'm referring to. I'm speaking specifically to the idea that an oral Torah was given alongside the written one so that halachah could be applied appropriately to each generation. For the midrash you've kept citing to support your argument you'd have to accept a line of reasoning that supports a similar idea.

I understand that principle. That is why I am a Reform Jew. I question each and every one of the Halacha.

I think you've entirely missed the direction of my argument. I'm talking about the midrash about Abraham smashing idols that you refer to when speaking about Abraham's beliefs and how miraculous it would have had to have been for it to have survived from the time that Abraham actually lived and how much a belief in the veracity of that midrash parallels Orthodox arguments for an oral Torah.

I understand your point. Parallels to Orthodox arguments are of limited value. I am a member of a weekly Talmud group. Our interpretation is quite different than the Orthodox.

If not, then what specifically do you suggest that Abraham believed and based on what? Previously you've stated that he believed in a non-corporeal, non-anthropomorphic God and that you are looking for scriptural basis for that belief. I presented a text in which Abraham and God have a long conversation because it's scriptural evidence for the contrary.

When I made the statement that Avraham represented a move to a non-anthropomorhic world view, that comment was based on my intuition, but when you asked me to support the comment, it turned out to be pretty easy to do. First I give you the JPS commentary. Then I found detailed discussion of just this issue in Elliotts book. What stronger argument would you like me to prove. It is rare that I am able to support my argument so rigorously.

I'm quite aware of that, which is part of why your citing Rambam on this matter, and your position about Abraham's actual beliefs, confuses me. You are arguing a position about history, not ahistory, that doesn't agree with the historical record, by picking and choosing your sources, including some that are pretty darn late.

The timeline in Avraham's time is pretty vague, because it is so early. But after Moses until the fall of the Second Temple it gets more and more historic.

If a Reform argument is going to make sense then it's gotta be a little more than picking and choosing ideas from various places. Usually I think Reform arguments are a bit more rigorous than that. But as far as I can tell all you've been doing is citing whatever sources seem at all to allow for your belief and ignoring any others. Were you making an ahistorical case I wouldn't have any issue with that, but you're speaking to what you believe Abraham's beliefs actually were.

I am not picking an choosing my sources. I am using an inductive approach to debate. I am showing you examples from scripture, commentary and literature.

At least then your system of beliefs would have more integrity. I think you get caught up too much in a certain type of literalism, in which you're looking for sacred text to confirm actual history, but specifically, a history that conforms with what you'd most like.

I am not a literalist at all. You are reading that into my comments.

It's something that's particularly Jewish, in a sense. It's the reading into Torah of one's own beliefs, connecting it back to Torah.

But I never claim it is historical. It is metaphorical, allegorical, allusion.

But once you get past a certain developmental threshold, which is to say, you've rejected the notion that Torah is some particularly reliable history document, it seems to me that it would be better to accept that what you are dealing with is, at best, a subjective history of the Jewish people as retold and reedited by many generations

I agree with that.

before reaching its final form and still subject to much reinterpretation after that. This is to say nothing of religious or spiritual significance, only historical veracity.

I do not think Torah or Haftorah reaches that point.

For you it seems like it is important, in order to be both rational and Jewish, that what you believe can in some way, truly, literally, be connected back to Abraham, rather than as something that one could potentially connect back to him by reading it into stories about him. Is that accurate or am I entirely off?

You are entirely off . I am not a literalist.

Because in a discussion about pantheism and panentheism that was moving in a very different direction we were discussing the validity of Torah as an historical document and the nature of Abraham's beliefs. Prior to this post I felt like my posts were disrupting the flow of that thread so I placed this response in a new thread here.

I think a very interesting feature of interfaith dialogue is understanding how concepts of different faiths contrast or agree with one another. That is why I started the thread on pantheism and panentheism in the Belief and Spirituality sub-forum.

But it is true that it is difficult to keep a focus on the Jewish part of that issue when you are in a crowd . As I said, this thread provides an interesting parallelism.

And I waited a couple of days to respond, you were overheating

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Avi

According to Richard Elliott Friedman, this section is all authored by "J", highly anthropomorphic.

Okay, but why does that allow you to write it off?

Because the idea of a non-anthropomorophic, non-corporeal G-d is one of the most important in Judaism.

That doesn't really answer my question. What's your belief that the idea of a non-anthropomorphic, non-corporeal God is one of the most important in Judaism got to do with what an historical Abraham actually believed and how does that belief validate the use of a rabbinic midrash as evidence for his beliefs?

Originally Posted by Avi

I understand that principle. That is why I am a Reform Jew. I question each and every one of the Halacha.

I understand your point. Parallels to Orthodox arguments are of limited value. I am a member of a weekly Talmud group. Our interpretation is quite different than the Orthodox.

I don't think you do understand. Your arguments for what Abraham believed based on a rabbinic midrash follow the same logic as Orthodox arguments for the oral Torah, therefore if you persist in that line of argumentation you are voicing your support for a line of reasoning that validates Orthodox beliefs about an Oral Torah that survived since Moses.

When I made the statement that Avraham represented a move to a non-anthropomorhic world view, that comment was based on my intuition, but when you asked me to support the comment, it turned out to be pretty easy to do. First I give you the JPS commentary. Then I found detailed discussion of just this issue in Elliotts book. What stronger argument would you like me to prove. It is rare that I am able to support my argument so rigorously.

None of what you presented supported your argument and I responded to each source that you presented when you presented it to point out why. You're welcome to go back and check for yourself.

The timeline in Avraham's time is pretty vague, because it is so early. But after Moses until the fall of the Second Temple it gets more and more historic.

Then you admit that the historical record doesn't support your statements about Abraham's beliefs.

I am not picking an choosing my sources. I am using an inductive approach to debate. I am showing you examples from scripture, commentary and literature.

But you are picking and choosing. You're saying "This scripture supports my belief about Abraham and even if this other scripture completely discredits it, I can write it off. This rabbinic midrash supports my belief and even if other late midrash discredits it, I can write it off. This commentary supports my belief and even if other commentary discredits it, I can write it off."

And in all of those cases there is no clear support for your belief. The commentary you provided doesn't agree with you. You've made no attempts to explain how E is more valid in regard to Abraham than J, for example, or to address the fact that even in E God is active. You say that because Abraham is said to have smashed some idols in a story that was written down closer to the life of Jesus than the life of Abraham that you have further evidence and have made no attempt to explain how such a story might have survived through so many generations.

I am not a literalist at all. You are reading that into my comments.

I'm referring to a specific type of literalism that perhaps you wouldn't label literalism. I mean, in reading the text, looking for a history that you then assert is literally true rather than just meaning.

But I never claim it is historical. It is metaphorical, allegorical, allusion.

So are you saying then that you really don't believe that the historical Abraham believed in a non-anthropomorphic, non-corporeal God? Because if you do then you can't really make the argument that it's all metaphorical and allegorical at the same time. That's a concrete historical belief.

And I waited a couple of days to respond, you were overheating

I don't know what you mean.

-- Dauer