Comments on Robin Lane Fox: The Unauthorized Version. By Moshe Kerr The comments on this book start with an introduction of the most influential persons which Fox acknowledges in his Acknowledgements. Julius Wellhausen: en.wikipedia.org/wiki.Julius_Wellhausen Wellhausen, a German biblical scholar of the late 19th century, developed a historical study known today as “Source Higher Criticism”. A key proponent of Historical criticism/higher criticism; this scholarship it’s a Protestant based perspective of the Bible. Wellhausen’s studies focused upon “source criticism”, in order to understand “the world behind the text”. Higher criticism, declares as its primary purpose “to ascertain the text’s primitive or original meaning in its original historical context, and its literal sense”. Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries. The perspective of the early historical criticism (HC) stems from Protestant reformation ideologies. HC sought to develop a methodology free from the influence of traditional Church interpretations of the Bible. A branch of HC, source criticism, focuses on the source documents to determine authorship, speculative division of Biblical Books espousing a theory that multiple authors collectively wrote different Books of the Bible spaced over time and different physical locations. The book, “Prolegomene Zur Geschechte Israels”, written in 1878 by J. Wellhausen, had a profound impact and greatly enhanced the reputation of HC. Fox also acknowledges the influence of Antony F. Cambell, SJ. This gentleman wrote “Preparatory Issues in Approaching Biblical Texts”. There he wrote: “Interpretation does not happen in a void. Interpretation emerges out of a context and speaks into a context…The key element of Biblical interpretation in recent centuries can be summed up in the adjective “critical”, is misleading as found in the term “Historical-critical”. This faulty adjective can suggest a concern with history that is not necessarily central”. The central focus of the works of the Bible centers upon teaching spirituality not history. Making the Bible as chief platform wherein later generations learn ancient history, at best very problematic. Protestant source criticism contrasts with Jewish Mussar scholarship. Mussar scholarship searches for the ethics which the T’NaCH teaches all generations. Hence Mussar scholarship does not view the T’NaCH stories as historical events of the past, but rather seeks to interpret these stories to grasp ethical faith for the current living generations. Protestant “literary criticism” or “source criticism”, likewise known as “origin criticism”, by contrast bases its interpretations of Biblical Books upon differences and duplications within these Biblical texts. Whereas Mussar scholarship, also aware of these difficulties, primarily relies upon the Oral Torah logic system completely, whose existence, lies totally outside the bounds of Protestant Goyim. Cambell wrote: The practice of Biblical source criticism has given rise to obsessive fragmentation of texts as well as conditioned refusal to see the obvious”. Mussar “interpretation” focuses how the prophets interpreted the ethics of the Torah; and equally how the Holy Writings of the T’NaCH serve as the primary commentaries by which to understand the Torah and Books of the Prophets. Because Mussar focuses upon developing a spirituality of ethics in each and all generations, Mussar has no links to history for history’s sake. Did the T’NaCH characters actually live? Shakespearean fictional characters do not disrupt the value of plays written by “Sir Francis Bacon”. The moral liberty from physical, personal, historic, and time constraints essentially defines the term “Prophet”. This Mussar interpretation of prophet enjoys a stark contrast with church notions which views prophets as men capable of seeing the future. Source criticism on the T’NaCH and equally upon the Xtian New testament employs specific compare and contrast skills. The Genesis account includes 2 sets of Creation stories. Set one involves a 40 day block of time – with 7 pairs “clean” animals; and one pair of “unclean” animals. The flood waters come from a rainstorm. The other set has a 150 day block of time, all animals in pairs and no sacrifices of any animals. The flood waters come from above and below. Mussar scholarship focuses upon the ethical idea of tohor/clean contrasted by tumah/unclean, and their relationship to halacha. Protestant HC ignores clean/unclean completely all together and likewise has no concept at all of halacha’s connection with the T’NaCH. Protestant HC argues that the Cohonim wrote the T’NaCH Books but ignores their commandment which requires Cohonim to do their worship in a tohor/clean state. This tremendous T’NaCH theme, Protestant HC totally ignores as irrelevant, because Israelite spirituality has nothing to do with Protestant revisionist history. Mussar links the creation stories to oaths. בראשית....ברית אש, the fire of the bris being an oath. Protestant HC limits the Creation stories to “In the beginning”. Neither the New Testament nor all the scholars of this literature ever delved into the bris faith. That Avram cut a bris prior to having any children no Protestant HC scholar has to date ever addressed. Because Israelite spirituality has nothing to do with Protestant revisionist history, HC scholarship never considers the key foundations upon which stand the Faith of bris Israel. The spirituality of “Chosen” directly refers to both the House of Aaron and tribe of Levi, together with the respective worship of these 2 groups of Cohonim, chosen by HaShem. Mussar spirituality contrasts with Protestant HC in that Mussar instructs that a Torah oath – defines fire! False oaths aroused the anger of the bris Elohim, HaShem destroyed the entire generation of the Flood. This mussar spirituality, not existing in the bounds of time, does not require a physical historical flood or a physical historical Job! Protestant theology cannot stand without physical historical Jesus. HC, even the atheist Fox assumes that once lived a physical Jesus. Protestant HC does not employ in its tools of comparison and contrast the technique of משל\נמשל. This scholarly tool permits Mussar to interpret the Creation stories and the flood based solely upon a moral ethical perspective rather than speculate on the validity of ancient history which emphatically lacks empirical evidence to validate or negate any Biblical narrative. The משל\נמשל method of interpretation does not limit בראשית to only “in the beginning” but rather learns ב ראשית meaning “Two beginnings”… a hint to the 2 yitzirot which resides in the hearts of bris man according to the Mussar taught by Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi. Hence this mussar explains the duel style the text employs with a logic that interprets it with an eye that all generations of the bris people can embrace faith together. Protestant HC, has no connection with faith; it has no concept that morality forges individuals into a national peoples’ alliance. When a people who live in the same land share no moral binding alliance, they tend their neighbors as feared strangers, on par with other foreigners from alien countries. A land whose society lacks the “glue” which binds them as a people - who enjoy peace with their moral allies -that land experiences perpetual wars. The leaders of such lands prefer empire over domestic harmony. Protestant HC does not consider, what causes war? Protestant HC interpretations, fails to weigh: tohor/clean and tumah/unclean, as introduced by the Noach flood story. Consequently it likewise does not connect the theme which unites the stories of H’vel with Noach; that HaShem chooses HIS Cohonim together with their korbanot. Hence Jewish Mussar scholarship contrasts with German Protestant HC - comparable to the difference between a fusion and fission nuclear reaction. The 2nd Book of the Torah introduces the first born chosen moral concept in conjunction with the destruction of the first born of Egypt. Mussar interpretative wisdom, because it does not fracture the authorship of the texts, but rather makes a study of the great themes found within the T’NaCH literature; Cohen and nation of Cohonim, this theme plays throughout all 5 Books of the Torah. The mussar wisdom theme method consequently compares the tohor/clean animals of Noach to the anointing of Aaron as Cohen wherein the Torah thereafter lists the animals as tohor/clean or tumah/unclean. Mussar learns from this comparison that just as only Cohonim of the house of Aaron can dedicate korbanot so too bris Israel who chose to keep the נעשה ונשמע oath which Israel swore to Moshe at Sinai, that observance of the משפטים/halachot distinguishes Israel from the non circumcised nation just as does the anointing of Aaron separates this house from all the families of Israel. The Preface of Robin Lane Fox’s book “The unauthorized Version” mentions the word truth five times in the opening paragraph. He concludes his preface with “I have reached and picked my conclusions with care, aware that I know Greek but not Hebrew [nor Aramaic]. 1 “In the beginning”… This opening of Fox’s book contains seven paragraphs. It employs the ‘T RUTH’ 13 times. Never does he make the slightest effort to define this key word. Wiki Radical criticism – Late 19th century, attempted to avoid any trace of dogma or theological bias when reconstructing a past reality. Radical criticism has projected the concept that Jesus never existed, nor his apostles. Radical critics have also attempted to show that none of the Pauline epistles are authentic. Bruno Bauer – A German philosopher and historian. Bauer was a radical rationalist philosopher. He concluded that early Xtianity owed more to ancient Greek philosophy (Stoicism) than to Judaism. Starting in 1840, he began a series of works arguing that Jesus was a 2nd century fusion of Greek, Jewish, and Roman theology. Julius Wellhausen – “Prolegomena Zur Geschichte Israels” – argues in this book that ancient Israelites did not practice a religion recognizable as Judaism. “The early religion of the Israelites, as depicted in the Yahwist and Elohist sources, was a polytheistic and family-based faith. The middle layer, the Deuteronomist, shows a clear impulse to the centralization of worship under the control of a dominant priesthood with royal support. Only in the final, post-Exilic layer, when the Royal authority had vanished and the priesthood had assumed sole authority over the community, is their evidence of the religion which the world knows as Judaism.” He argued that the Books of the Prophets historically preceded the Torah. He summarized his conclusions: “There was no Written Law in ancient Israel, the Torah being held as an oral tradition by priests and prophets; Deuteronomy was the first Law, and gained currency only during the Babylonian exile, when the prophetic tradition ceased; Ezekiel and his successors were responsible for the codification and systematization of worship, and Ezra for the introduction of the Priestly code (the laws contained in Leviticus); and it was the creation of the written Torah which marked the break between the ancient history of Israel and the later history of Judaism. In Acknowledgements, Fox writes: “Modern attempts to depart from their main principles have mostly confirmed me in the widely shared acceptance that Wellhausen was right. Fox also acknowledges the influence of David Daube. Daube wrote of the Bible: “A collection of literature arranged by priests and prophets”. More over these texts are not the authoritative statement of Hebrew law. The Priestly transmission has distorted the law. The law had an independent existence in the Israelite state. Daube contrasts with Fox as a scholar, in that he knew at least Hebrew and Aramaic. Daube’s scholarship sought to bridge the gap between Judaism and Xtianity. Arnaldo Momigliano, an Italian Jewish historian Sep. 5, 1908 – Sep. 1, 1987. He argued that the Hanukkah story is really about a revolt against the Hellenized Jews who had fallen madly in love with the sophisticated, globalizing superculture of their day. The Apocrypha’s texts make it clear that the battle against Hellenization was in fact a kulturkampf (a conflict between the Oral Torah faith as taught by the Levites and the P’rushim and the assimilated Tz’dukkim aristocrats) among the Jews themselves. The first Book of Maccabees describes Jerusalem on the eve of Civil War, and the revolt in the time of Antiochus. “At that time there were some evil doers in Israel who tried to win popularity for a policy of integration with the surrounding nations. It was because the Jews had kept themselves aloof for so long, they claimed, that so many hardships had befallen them. They acquired a following and applied to Antiochus, who authorized them to introduce the Greek way of life. They built a Greek gym- nasium in Jerusalem and even had themselves uncurcumcised.” Emil Schurer May 2, 1844 – April 30, 1910. He was a German Protestant theologian. He wrote: “History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ”. Schurer opined touching the conflicts between the P’rushim and the Tz’dukkim: “They had the bulk of the nation as their ally, and women especially were in their hands. They had the greatest influence upon the congregations, so that all acts of public worship, prayers, and sacrifices were performed according to their injunctions. Their sway over the masses was so absolute that they could obtain a hearing even when they said anything against the king or the high priest. Consequently they were the most capable of counter-acting the design of the kings. Hence, too, the Tz’ddukim, in their official acts, adhered to the demands of the P’rushim, because otherwise the multitude would not have tolerated them.” Atheist Fox writes: “When I quote the Bible in my text, I usually use the King James version.”
Posted on: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:57:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015