revelation in the jewish tradition - norman solomon preprint.pdffound in the mystical works known...

NormanSolomon RevelationintheJewishTradition

Revelation in the Jewish Tradition Norman Solomon

TheHebrewScripturesrelatethatGodrevealsHisPresencethroughpersonalexperience(as

frequentlyinPsalms)orthroughcontrolofhistory(theExodusfromEgypt,thefallofBabylon).

Alternatively,Hemayissueinstructionsorlaws,whetherthroughadream,inavision,through

anintermediarysuchasanangeloraprophet.OccasionallythePresenceandtheCommandare

combined:atSinai(Exod.19-20)orHoreb(Deut.4-5),IsraelexperiencedGod’sPresence,andat

thesametimewereapprisedofHisWill,throughtheTenWords(‘Commandments’).

Philo WhenJewsencounteredHellenisticculturetheyfeltaneedtojustifyrevelationasasourceof

knowledge;PhiloofAlexandria(d.c.30CE)isthefirstJewwhosespeculationshavebeen

extensivelypreserved.

InBook2ofDeVitaMosis(VM)PhiloexpoundsatlengthMoses’excellenceasphilosopher-king,

law-giver,highpriestandprophet.Forinstance,‘Thenextstepneededwasthatthemost

suitablepersonsshouldbechosenaspriests…Accordingly,heselectedoutofthewhole

numberhisbrotherashighpriestonhismeritsandappointedhisbrother’ssonsaspriests…’

(VM2:141-2:Loebedition,trans.H.Colson)

PhilodoesnotclaimthatMoseschoseAaron,orinstitutedlaws,onhisowninitiative.Rather,

GodrevealedtoMoses,throughprophecy,whatbyreasoninghecouldnotgrasp(VM2:6).All

thingswritteninthesacredbooksaredivineoraclesdeliveredthroughMoses(VM2:188).

SomeareoraclesspokenbyGodhimselfwiththeprophetashisinterpreter.Philogivesno

instancesofthese,whichare‘toogreattobelaudedbyhumanlips,’butappearstohavein

mindthebulkoflegislationintheFiveBooks.(VM2:188,189,191).Thenthereareoraclesin

whichtheprophetenquiresandGodrepliesandinstructs,suchastheincidentsofthemanwho

gatheredsticksontheSabbathday(Num.15:32--36),ortheinheritanceofthedaughtersof

Zelophehad(Num.27:1-11and36:1-12).(VM2:188,190-245).Finally,thereareoracles

‘deliveredbytheprophethimselfunderdivineinspiration,’suchas Moses’addressestothe

NormanSolomon RevelationinJudaism

2|P a g e

IsraeliteswhentheywereabouttocrosstheRedSeaandwhentheMannaraineddown(VM

2:188,190,246-287).

TheFiveBooksarepartof‘ancestraltradition,’arecordofdivinelyinspiredoraclesinterpreted

byMoses,thatis,expressedinMoses’words,ratherthandictatedliterally.‘Ancestrallaw’is

thatwhichiswritteninscripture;thereisalso‘unwrittenlaw,’‘lawoftheheart,’basicmorality

implantedtherebyGod.

PhilousestheGreekwordlogosinanovelsense.LikePlato,heassertstheontological

superiorityoftheideatoitsembodimentinmaterialform.Ideasareembodiedinwords.When

Godcreatedtheworld,hedidsobymeansofHisWord(logos)(‘AndGod,said,lettherebe’

Gen.1:3).Hisinitial,mostperfect,creationwasofideas,whichHesubsequentlycastininferior,

materialform.SoPhilowrites:

Should a man desire to use words in a more simple and direct way, he would say that

the world discerned only by the intellect is nothing else than the Word of God when

He was already engaged in the act of creation … if the part [of creation, i.e. Man] is an

image of an image …and if the whole creation, this entire world perceived by our

senses … is a copy of the Divine image … the archetypal seal also, which we aver to

be the world descried by the mind, would be the very Word of God. (De Opificio 24-

25, trans. Colson )

TheworldofIdeas,fromPhilo’sPlatonicperspectivethereal,‘intelligible’worldofgoodness

andtruthtowhichweaspiretorise,isinthissenseGod’s‘Word’,andthelocusofMoses’

‘oracles’;Torahandancestraltraditionsarticulateitinthebestpossiblemanner.ItistheWord

ofGod’sCreation(Gen.1),oftheAngelspeakingtoHagar(Gen.18:8)ortoJacob(Gen.31:13)

andofWisdompersonified(Proverbs8).

Philo’swritingsandevenhisnamewereforgottenbyJewsuntilmoderntimes,buthisideas

remainedinfluential.Thelogos,forinstance,resurfacedasthememra(‘word’)oftheAramaic

Targumim(translationsofscripture)fromaboutthesecondcenturyCEonwards.So,for

instance,God’spromisetoJacob,‘Iwillbewithyouandlookafteryouwhereveryougo’(Gen.

28:15)isrenderedbyTargumOnkelos:‘Mymemrawillsupportyou,andIwilllookafteryou

whereveryougo’.


3|P a g e

Rabbinic Judaism: Privileging the Pentateuch TheSageswho,inroughlythefirsttosixthcenturiesCE,definedRabbinicJudaism,accepted

thatthewholeextantPentateuch,withthepossibleexceptionofthelasteightversesof

Deuteronomy,hadbeendictatedbyGodtoMoses.Revelationoccursatdifferentlevels;

whereasMosescommunedwithGod‘facetoface,asamanwithhisneighbour’(Exod.33:11,cf.

Num.12:8),otherprophetswouldhavetobesatisfiedwithavisionoradream(Num.12:6).

ThePentateuchisthereforeprivilegedovertherestofscripture.Halakha(law)isuniquely

situatedinandvalidatedthroughitspresenceinthePentateuch.

TheRabbiswereconcernedwithdefiningthecontentofTorah;theydidnottheorize,ina

philosophicalmanner,astohowGodcommunicated,eventhoughtheygavestrikingand

sometimesbeautifulaccountsoftheRevelationatSinai.

ThesystematicarticulationofhalakhaintheformofMishnagaverisetotheimpressionthat

GodhadrevealednotoneTorahbuttwo:

The rabbis taught: It happened that a heathen came before Shammai and asked him,

‘How many Torahs do you have?’ He replied, ‘Two, the Written and the Oral’. He

said: ‘I believe what you say about the Written, but not about the Oral. Convert me on

condition that you teach me [only] the Written.’ Shammai responded sharply and

drove him away. He went to Hillel; [Hillel] accepted him as a convert. The first day

he taught him, Aleph, bet, gimmel, dalet; the next day he reversed the order. [The

convert] protested, ‘That is not what you told me yesterday!’ He said, ‘Did you not

rely on me? Rely on me also with regard to the Oral [Torah]’( bShabbat 31a)

TheconceptionoftraditionasakindofsecondTorah,revealedtoMosesbuthandeddown

orallyratherthaninwriting,justifiestheacceptanceofMishnahandotherrabbinicteachingsas

integraltotheTorahofMoses:‘Scripture,Mishnah,Talmud,Aggadah—whateveramature

studentwould[oneday]teachinthepresenceofhismaster,werealreadyimpartedtoMosesat

Sinai’.(yPe’ah2:4;bBerakhot5a;bMegilla19bwithvariations)

Therabbis’stratagemstoshowthatwhattheywereteachingwasnodeparturefromoraddition

toscripture,butitsfulfilment,parallelthewayinwhichcontemporaryChristianstriedto

demonstratethattheNewTestamentwasthefulfilmentoftheOld.


4|P a g e

The Rise of Mysticism Claimsofsecret,redemptiveknowledgearefoundinseveralapocalypticwritings.Godreveals

his‘mysteries’tothoseWhomhechooses.

TalmudicJudaism,despiteanoccasionalreferencesuchastheaccountofthefourSageswho

enteredparadise(bḤagiga14b),marginalizesesotericknowledge.Nevertheless,circlesof

Jewishmysticsflourishedwithintherabbinicmilieu(Schäfer2011);clearevidenceofthisis

foundinthemysticalworksknowncollectivelyastheMerkava(‘chariot’,asinEzek.1)or

Hekhalot(‘palaces’–1Chr.28:18,cf.BenSira49:8)treatises.Thesedescribethejourneyofthe

adeptthroughthesevenheavens,amongtheangelichosts;aswellasgivingsomeinsightinto

themysticalunderstandingofprophecy,theyteachthatpropheticenlightenmentincludingthe

‘mysteries’ofTorahisaccessibletothegiftedindividual.

TheTalmudinsiststhattheTorah(bothwrittenandoral)washandedtoMosesandisnow

completelyinthehandsofqualifiedmortalswhoareresponsibleforitsdissemination,

interpretationandapplication.Hekhalotmysticsdonotdenythis.Theyclaim,however,to

acquireadditionallevelsofTorahunderstandingthroughtheirascenttothedivinePresence,

wheretheangelic‘PrinceofTorah’revealsthedeepestinsightstothem.Torahacquiredinthis

waydoesnotdifferinitspracticalaspectsfromtheTorahoftheRabbis,butitisenrichedby

contemplationofthedivine,andbywitnessingandevenparticipatinginangelicworship.

HekhalotmysticismexertedaprofoundinfluenceonJewishliturgy,throughincorporationinto

dailyworshipoftheqedusha(‘sanctification’),acongregationalprayerfocusedontheangelic

declarations‘Holy,holy,holyistheLordofHosts’(Isa.6:3)and‘BlessedbeGloryoftheLord

fromhisplace’(Ezek.3:12).

Theideathattherewasabodyofknowledgethatwasbothsecretandvaluableforredemption

continuedintolaterJudaism,especiallythroughkabbalah.MidrashRabbahonSongofSongs

(sixth-centuryPalestine)raisesthethemeofpropheticenlightenmenttothenationallevel.The

RevelationatSinaiisthe‘marriage’ofGodandIsrael,withMosesas‘bestman’;foramoment,

atSinai,whenGodproclaimed‘IamtheLordyourGod’and‘Youshallhavenoothergods

beforeMe’thewholepeopleparticipatedintheultimaterevelationandexperiencedthe

profoundest‘mysteries’.


5|P a g e

TheesoterictraditiontaughtthatTorahconcealedwithinitselfapathtomysticalexperience,

andthatthoughtheSinairevelationwasunique,revelationwasnotboundtoasingleeventin

Israelitehistory,butremainedopen,asanongoingexperienceinwhichthefaithfulmightshare.

SomeKabbalistswentfurther,claimingthatTorahwasnotameretextdictatedbyGodto

Moses,asifitwassomethingexternaltothegodhead.Torahisadistillationofthedivine

essence;thoughtheInfinite(einsof)remainsforeverbeyondcomprehension,Torahisitself,

mysteriously,theaccessibledivinePresence.TorahhasnotonlycomefromHeaven,asabook

mightissuefromthepenofanauthorataspecifictimeandplace;itradiatespermanentlyfrom

heaven,creatingalivingbondbetweenthehumanandthedivine.Thecommandmentsof

Torah,are,sotospeak,the‘limbs’ofGod,thetangiblePresenceoftheineffable.

Somekabbalists,inspiredbyTalmudicanecdotes(bTa‘anit29aandparallels),claimedElijah

revealedhimselftothemandinstructedtheminthemysteriesofTorah.MedievalRhineland

mysticsofthemerkavatradition,suchasJacobofMarvège,IsaacofDampierreandEleazarof

Wormsclaimedpropheticinspiration;thetitle‘prophet’sometimesappliedtothemindicated

thattheyhadaccomplishedheavenlyjourneysandbehelddeepmysteries.(Scholem1987,239

ff.)StilltodaytherearemysticswholayclaimtogiluiEliyahu(revelationthroughElijah).

Medieval Rationalism TheEgyptian-bornSaadiaBenJosephAl-Fayyumi(882-942),laterGaon(headoftheacademy)in

Sura,assertedthesupremacyofreason,includingthemoralsense.EchoingEuthyphro’s

dilemmahearguedthatGod’swaysandhisrevelationaccordwithreasonnotbecauseGod

definesreasonandjustice;rather,God,intotalfreedom,actsandrevealshimselfinaccordance

withabsolutereasonandjustice.Allknowledgecomestousthroughsenseexperience,logical

inferencefromsenseexperience,oraninnatemoralsensethatisitselfaformof‘rationality’;

theTorahconformsentirelywithreason(Saadia,Introduction).

Why,then,didGodsendmessengers(prophets)torevealtheTorah,seeingthatwecouldhave

arrivedatitslawsanddoctrinesbypurereason?Someofthecommandmentsarecontingent,

dependingforinstanceonhistoricalevents,socouldnothavebeenarrivedatbyreasonalone;

moreover,reasonestablishesprinciples,butcouldnotdefineindetaileventhose

commandmentswhicharepurelyrational(Saadia,3:3).Aboveall,Revelationwasaspecialact

ofGod’scompassion;hewishedknowledgeofTorahtobeclearandavailabletoall,evento


6|P a g e

thosewholackedphilosophicalabilityortimetodiscoveritforthemselves(Saadia,

Introduction).

Grantedprophecywasnecessary,howcanpeoplebecertainthatsomeoneclaimingtobea

God’smessengerreallyis?Theclaimantmustfirstsummonthepeopletoacourseofaction

whichisbothpossibleandjust(Saadia,3:8);theymaythendemandthatheestablishhis

credentialsbycorrectlypredictingsomeeventwhichcouldnothavecomeaboutnaturally,so

canbeseentohaveproceededfromGod(3:4).Moses’miraclesweregreaterthanthoseofany

subsequentclaimanttoprophecy(forinstanceJesusorMuhammed),thereforenonecanclaim

tohavesupersededhim.

Saadiadoesnotspeculateastothechannelbywhichaprophetreceivesrevelation.Moses

Maimonides(1138-1204),inAyyubidEgypt,remediesthisdeficiencyintheextensivesectionon

ProphecyinhisGuideforthePerplexed(2:32to3:7).

ToMaimonides,theSinairevelationwasanhistoricalevent.ThewrittenTorahwasatext

dictatedwordbywordbyGodtoMosesandsupplementedbyanOralTorah,likewisereceived

fromGodbyMoses.OralandWrittenTorahtogetherformedanindivisiblewhole,entirely

publicandinconformitywithreason;ifitsprofounderlevelscouldonlybeapproachedbythose

withexceptionalaptitudeandtraining,itwasnotbecausetheywereesotericinamystical

sense,butbecausebehindtheirplainmeaninglayphilosophicalandscientifictruthsinaccessible

totheuneducated,unintelligentpublic.

LikeothermedievalphilosophersMaimonidesconceivedoftheuniverseasconsistingofa

materialsphereofearth,fire,airandwatersurroundedbyspheresofprogressively‘higher’

substances(thespherescarryingsun,moon,planetsandfixedstars),culminatingintheentirely

spiritualrealmofGod,whoinhimselfisunknowable.Man,composedofsoul(spirit)andbody

(material)somehowbridgesthegapbetweenspiritualandmaterial;Man’spurposeisto

transcendthebodyandtorise,throughunderstanding,tothespiritualrealm,inclosenessto

GodinEternity.

Theindividualstrugglestoachievemoralandintellectualperfection.Actualprophecy,however,

isGod’sfreelygivenactofgrace:adivineemanationischannelleddownthroughthe

‘intelligences’ofthecelestialspheres,andfinallythroughthe‘ActiveIntellect’(lowestoftheten

emanationsdescendingthroughthecelestialspheres)totherationalfacultyoftheprophet,

thengraspedandinterpretedthroughhisimagination.Prophetsvaryinrespectofthebalance


7|P a g e

betweenintellectandimagination,‘imagination’heremeaningnotinventionorfantasyasin

modernEnglish,buttheabilitytoformmentalimages.Thoseinwhomtheimagination

predominatesdescribetheirexperienceintermsofvisionsordreams(Guide2:36).

MaimonidesheldthatGoddictatedtoMosesthetextwenowhave,andatthesametime

receivedclarificationsandsupplementstothattextwhichconstitutetheOralTorah.His

medievalopponentsagreedthattheTorahpossessedprofoundmeaningsbeyondthesuperficial

meaningofthetext,butrejectedhisclaimthatsuchmeaningsmightberecoveredthroughthe

studyofscienceandmetaphysics;thedeepermeaningsshouldbesoughtinhalakhahand

mysticalinsightratherthaninextraneousscienceandphilosophy.

Early Modernity Ifscriptureisperfectasclaimed,itshouldbefreefromcontradictions,morallapsesandfactual

errors.Instrictlogic,iftheBiblecontainedevenonerealcontradiction,onemorallapse,orone

factualerror,itcouldnotasatotalitybetheWordofGod,thoughsomeofitmightbe.Butonly

inearlymoderntimes,withamorescientificapproachtotextualstudy,andwiththeweakening

ofclericalcontrol,wasitpossibletoquestionthetraditionopenly.

TherootsofhistoricalcriticisminChristianEuropelayinRenaissanceandHumanistculture,in

therediscoveryofaworldofwisdomandvitalitythatlayoutsidethedominantreligious

tradition.RenaissancescholarsturnedtoJewishscholarssuchasElijahLevita(1469-1549)and

ObadiahSforno(c1470-1550)forguidanceinHebrew;theysubjectedtheHebrewtextofthe

BibletoliteraryandhistoricalanalysisinthesamewaytheyhadalreadydealtwiththeGreek

andLatinclassicsandtheNewTestament.Intheseventeenthcenturythefullforceofthenew

critiquesbecameevident.DeismhadtakenrootinthewritingsofHerbertofCherburyand

others;Copernicus’DeRevolutionibusOrbiumhadbeenpublishedin1543,andNewtonwasto

publishhisPrincipiain1687.

TheimpactofthenewworldviewisnowheremoreevidentontheJewishsidethanintheworks

ofUrield’Acosta(1585-1640),IsaacdeLaPeyrère(1596–1676)andBaruch(Benedict)Spinoza

(1632-1677),allmembersofconversofamilieswhohadtakenadvantageofNetherlands

religiousfreedomtoreturntoJudaism,atrajectorywhichinvitedreligiousdoubts.Allthree

werefirmlyrejectedbytheJewishcommunityfortheirheterodoxviews,butSpinozain

particularposedquestionswhichshapedfutureJewish,aswellasmuchChristian,thinkingon


8|P a g e

Revelation.HisTractatusTheologico-Politicus(firstpubishedin1670)wasdesignedasan

argumentforreligioustolerance,butthistoleranceimpliedtherejectionoftraditionalJewish

andChristianinterpretation:

I constructed a method of Scriptural interpretation, and thus equipped proceeded to

enquire—What is prophecy? In what sense did God reveal Himself to the prophets,

and why were these particular men chosen by Him? … I was easily able to conclude,

that the authority of the prophets has weight only in matters of morality, and that their

speculative doctrines affect us little. (Spinoza, 8)

Spinoza’sconceptofDivineLaw,whichhedefinesas‘thatwhichonlyregardsthehighestgood,

inotherwords,thetrueknowledgeofGodandlove’(59),isthatitisuniversal,independentof

historicalnarrative,unconnectedwithritesandceremonies,andis‘itsownreward’(62).Clearly,

thisexcludes‘ceremonial’law,aswellaslawspertainingtotheancientIsraelitepolity,manyof

whichwere(andare)stillobservedbyJews.

SuchideasrestonscientificstudyofthetextoftheBible,whichrevealsitaslargelyman-made

anderror-prone,thePentateuchcommittedtowritingnotbyMosesbutmanycenturieslater,

probablybyEzra.(Ch.8)Spinozaalsomakesphilosophicalassumptions,notfullyexplicateduntil

theposthumouslypublishedEthics.Essentially,God(whetherornotidentifiedwithNature)is

perfectandHiscreationisperfect;whateverhappens,happensisinaccordancewithperfect

lawsthatallowofnoexception,sincetheyaredeterminedbylogicalnecessity.Perfectvirtueis

thatwhichaccordswithperfectreason,soisinvariable;itisnotdefinedbylaw.

InsumRevelation,forSpinoza,wascoextensivewithReason,asamodeofGod.Bycritical

readingofScripture,inthelightofReason,itwaspossibletoselectthosepassageswhichwere

oflastingvalueastheWordofGod;therestcouldbecastasideasofatmostpassingvalue,

fittedtothetimeandplaceofitscomposition.

Reason,notscripturalexegesis,wasthecriterionoftruth.Thisturnedonitsheadthemedieval

projectofsubordinatingreasontoscripture.

Enlightenment and Reaction Spinoza’simmediateimpactonmainstreamJewishthinkingwastorenderitevenmore

defensive,butwiththedevelopmentofscientificBiblestudywhichhehadpioneered,andwith

thecomingofGermanRomanticism,attitudesbecamemorefavourable.


9|P a g e

MosesMendelssohn(1729-1786),befriendedbyLessing,movedinsuchcircles.Hisown

religiousphilosophywasclosetoDeism,andthiscolouredhisattitudetoTorah.Torah,he

claimsinhisJerusalem,isentirelyinconformitywithreason—bywhichweunderstandthat

Godexists,andhasrevealedtheethicalprincipleswhichallreasonablepeoplewouldagree

upon;GodandethicsformthecontentoftheSevenCommandmentsofNoah,addressedtoall

humankind.TheTorahcontainsnoirrationaldogma,suchasthosewhichcauseconfusionand

strifeamongChristians.ItslegislationisaddressedspecificallytothepeopleofIsraelandis

bindingonno-oneelse.

Butwhatare‘irrationaldogmas’?ForMendelssohn,asfordeistsingeneral,beliefinGodandin

theafterlifewereperfectlyrational;ChristianbeliefthatGodwasincarnatedinthewombofa

virginwasnot.

TheBiblicaltext,forMendelssohn,isaliteraryworkofbeautyandmajesty,articulatingIsrael’s

relationshipwithherGodasamodeloftherelationshipofhumananddivine.Itsessenceliesin

itsethicalandmoralteaching;thoseofitslawsthatarenotprimarilyethicalandmoralarenot

universal,butconstitutetherevealedlegislationofthepolityofIsrael.TheTorahisnotthe

repositoryofscientificinformation;Godrevealedlaws,notscience;philosophicaltruths,not

religiousdogma.

BeyondtheheartlandsoftheEuropeanEnlightenmentideassuchasthoseofMendelssohn

weredeeplydisturbing,andtherewerereactions.Mendelssohn’scontemporaryinLithuania,

ElijahofVilna(the‘VilnaGaon’,1720-99),extendedandreinforcedthetraditionalconceptof

Revelation.HeheldthatkabbalahequallywithhalakhahhadoriginatedatSinai.Torahwasboth

eternalandcomprehensive:

In sum, everything that was, is and will be throughout time is included in the Torah

from ‘In the beginning …’ (Genesis 1:1) to ‘… before the eyes of all Israel’

(Deuteronomy 34:12). And not only the general principles, but even the details of each

species and of each human individual, whatever happens to him from the day of his

birth until his end, and all his transmigrations, all in full detail. Likewise, [details of]

every species of animal and living being, as well as of every plant and mineral …

whatever happened to the Patriarchs and Moses and all Israel in each generation, for

undoubtedly the sparks of all of them are reincarnated throughout the generations …

and all their deeds from Adam to the end of the Torah are [reenacted] in each

generation, as is known to those who understand [these things]. All this is included in


10|P a g e

the portions from ‘in the beginning …’ to Noah and summed up in the opening chapter

to ‘in creating had made’ (Gen.2:3). (Elijah of Vilna, Sifra di-Tsni‘uta, p. 34a (205).

My translation.)

FortheGaon,thewrittentextofTorahisaCodedictatedbyGod,inwhicheveryletter,every

mark,eventhetraditionalcantillation,encodeslayeruponlayerofinformation;thewhole

worldanditshistoryandallofsciencearecontainedinit,asaretheminutiaeofthemitzvotthat

alonecanenablethefaithfultonegotiatethehazardsandtemptationsofthisworld.Its

contentsareteasedoutintheOralTorah,likewiserevealedatSinai,andwhichincludesboth

halakhahandkabbalah.ThesciencesofthenationsarebutremnantsofwhatIsraelhaslostin

itsunderstandingofTorah;science,historyandallknowledgearesubsidiarytoTorah,and

ultimatelycontainedwithinit.LikeNewton,Elijahregardedtheuniverseverymuchas‘a

cryptogramsetbytheAlmighty’;buthisdecodingeffortswerefocusedonJewishholywritings

anddidnotleadhimtooriginalinvestigationofnatureortochallengereceivedwisdombeyond

therestrictedsphereofhalakhah.

MeanwhileatKoenigsberg,notfarfromVilnius,KantwasspeakingofGodasa‘practical

postulate’toupholdthemorallaw.Howwasrevealedreligioncompatiblewithsuchan

attenuatedGod?In1792JohannGottliebFichte(1762-1814)publishedaVersucheinerKritik

allerOffenbarung(‘AttemptataCritiqueofAllRevelation’).Religion,hemaintained,wasbelief

inthemorallawasdivine;thiswasapracticalpostulate,requiredtoaddforcetothelaw.InDie

BestimmungdesMenschen(‘TheVocationofMan’)(1800)hedefinesGodastheinfinitemoral

willoftheuniversewhobecomesconsciousofhimselfinindividuals.Inlaterworkshe

interpretedtheEnlightenmentasthehistoricalevolutionofthegeneralhumanconsciousness,

lookingforwardtobeliefinthedivineorderoftheuniverseasthehighestaspectofthelifeof

reason,andwroteoftheunionbetweenthefiniteself-consciousnessandtheinfiniteego,or

God.

SuchargumentsimpactedenlightenedGermanJews.In1835,respondingtoFichte,Salomon

LudwigSteinheim(1789-1866)publishedDieOffenbarungnachdemLehrbegriffdesSynagoge,

einSchibboleth.SteinheimfeltthatinmakingtheideaofGoddependentonthecertaintyof

ethicaljudgmentsKanthadseriouslyundervaluedthespiritual.ToKant’sfourantinomieshe

addedafifth,thatbetweenreasonandexperience.Reason(apriorijudgment)constantlyfound

itselfatoddswithexperience,evenintherealmofscience;scienceassumesthateverythinghad


11|P a g e

acause,whereasexperiencedemonstratesfreedom.Reasonoperateswithlogicalnecessity,

bindingGodHimselftothelawsofcausality.Butthisisatoddswithempiricalobservation,in

particularwiththeexistentialnotionoffreedom.Revelationisthereforenecessary,nottoyield

ethicalprinciples,whichinanycasecouldbefurnishedbyreason,andcertainlynottoprovide

legislation.Itisneededpreciselyforthatwhichreasoncannotoffer,theknowledgeofGodas

totallyfreeCreator.

Howarewetorecognizeasupernaturalrevelation?Steinheimsetsixcriteria(Haberman,9):

1. Itmustbecommunicable

2. Itmustbecomprehensible

3. Itmustallowthedistinctionbetweentrueandfalse

4. ContrarytoSchleiermacher,itmustnotrestonmere‘feeling’(Haberman159f.)

5. Itisnotvalidatedbycoincidencewithourownconsciousness

6. Itmusthavethecharacterofnovelty,thatis,itshouldcontradictpreviouslyheld

opinion,yetintheendlogicallycompelacknowledgmentofitstruth.

TherevealeddoctrineofGodastotallyfreeCreatorfitsthesecriteria.Whatdoesnotfitisany

formofprogressiverevelation,includingclaimsofthesuperiorityoftheNewTestamentover

theOld.(Haberman,149f.)RevelationwasauniqueeventatSinai.

Fourprinciplesemergeasthecontentofrevelation:theUniquenessofGod;Creation;

Freedom;theImmortalityoftheSoul.(Shear-Yashuv,Ch.4)ThelawsofTorah,however,,

contrarytoMendelssohn,donotconstituterevelation.True,theactualTorahincorporates

laws,forinstancetheSabbathanddietarylaws,buttheseareofvalueonlyinsofarasthey

symbolizetherevealeddoctrineofGod.

Progressive Revelation

OtherJewishthinkers,influencedbyHegel,committedtothenotionofrevelationasauniversal,

gradualprocess.NachmanKrochmal(1785-1840)identifiedHegel’s‘AbsoluteSpirit/Mind’with

theconceptofGodinreligioustradition,comparingthetransitionfromtheAbsoluteRealityto

thegeneratedrealityoffinitethingstotheLurianicnotionoftheworldasgeneratedbyGod’s

actofself-confinement(tzimtzum).ThoughallreligiousfaithwasbasedupontheSpirit,the

biblicalfaithwasuniqueinitspurityandtheuniversalityofitsimagery.Theuniquerelationship


12|P a g e

betweentheJewishpeopleandGod,theAbsoluteSpirit,wasatitsstrongestintherevelation

onMt.SinaiandinIsraeliteprophecy.

TheGermanReformersSolomonFormstecher(1808-1889)andSamuelHirsch(1815-1889)

aimedtopresentJudaisminawaywhichconformedwithGermanProtestantIdealismyet

rejecteditsChristologicaldoctrines,andwhichwouldaffirmtheplaceofJewsin‘modern’

society.FormstecherpresentsJudaismasanideawhosefullvalueisrevealedthroughthe

gradual,progressivedevelopmentofmankind;theEnlightenmentandEmancipationwerethe

intellectualandsocial-politicalmanifestationsofthisinternal,spiritualprocess.Revelationisthe

divinecommunicationconcerningthetruenatureofgoodandevil.ItistheidentificationofGod

asapuremoralbeing,notthecommunicationofphilosophicalconcepts,andwasmanifestedin

itspurestformthroughtheprophetsofIsrael.Judaismfulfilsitsmissionamongthenationsnot

directly,butthroughChristianityandIslam,whichbridgethegapbetweenpaganismandfull

spiritualenlightenment.

Hirsch,whoemigratedtotheUnitedStatesin1866,interpretedJudaismasadialectically

evolvingreligioussystem,inwhichmancomestoknowthefreedomofhissovereignwillby

whichhealoneamongallcreaturestranscendsthedeterminismofnature.Hirsch’sideas

underlaytheformulationofthefifthpostulateofthePittsburghReformPlatformof1885:

We recognize in the modern era of universal culture of heart and intellect the

approaching of the realization of Israel’s great Messianic hope for the establishment of

the kingdom of truth, justice and peace among all men. We consider ourselves no

longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to

Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any

of the laws concerning the Jewish state.

TheidentificationofJudaismandofMessiahwithuniversalhumanprogressreacheditsapogee

intheworkofthelastsystematicJewishphilosopher,theneo-KantianHermannCohen(1842-

1918).GodrevealsHiswillbycreatingmanasarationalcreaturewhothroughreasoniscapable

ofapprehendingthelawsoflogicandethics.Thus,revelationisnotconfinedtoanyhistoric

eventnoreventoanyspecialmodeofcognition;itcharacterizesatraitofman,whothroughthe

possessionofhisrationalfacultiesbecomesthebearerofdivinerevelation;thereiscorrelation

betweentheuniquenessofGodontheonehand,andhumanreason,asGod’screation,onthe

other(Cohen,71-84).Judaismistherevelationofanevermoreperfectethicalmonotheism;


13|P a g e

‘everyphilosophy,everyspiritual-moralculture,requiresthepresuppositionoftheeternalas

opposedtothetransitorinessofallearthlyinstitutionsandhumanideas.’(Cohen,83)

Bythebeginningofthetwentiethcenturybeliefintheinevitabilityofhumanprogresswas

wearingthin.ArthurSchopenhauer’s(1788-1860)pessimisticcounter-testimonytothe

HegelianshadbeentakenforwardbyNietzsche(1844-1900),andOswaldSpengler(1880-1936)

wasshortlytoproclaimthatthefuturecouldonlybeaperiodofirreversibledecline.In

continentalEurope,moreover,Jewshadtodependmoreonwishfulthinkingthanonsocial

realitytocontinuebelievingintheirownacceptanceintothepromisednewuniversalutopia.

Confidenceinsystematicphilosophywasatalowebb.Cohen’stwomostgifteddisciples,Buber

andRosenzweig,inauguratedtheeraofJewishexistentialism.

Existentialists

MartinBuber(1878-1965)wasinfluencedbyFeuerbach’sinsistencethattheconceptofGod

derivedfromtheconceptofmanandwascentredonpersonalrelations,byKirkegaard‘s

critiqueofHegelianmetaphysics,andcruciallybyWilhelmDilthey’semphasisonthedistinction

betweenthe‘objective’naturalsciences(Naturwissenschaften)andthe‘subjective’humanities

(Geisteswissenschaften);law,religion,artandhistory,inDilthey’sview,shouldfocusona

‘human-social-historicalreality’.

InIchundDu(‘IandThou’),publishedin1923,Buberexpoundedthephilosophyofdialogueina

rhapsodicratherthanasystematicmanner.Therearetwo‘primarywords’,saysBuber,‘I-Thou’

and‘I-It’,andallrelationshipsaresubsumedundertheseterms.God,accordingtoBuber,isthe

‘EternalThou,’notknownthroughpropositionsabouthim,butencounteredthrougheachtrue

meetingbetweenanindividualanda‘Thou,’whetheritbeaperson,animal,aspectofnature,

workofartorGodhimself.‘Alllivingismeeting’(allesLebenistBegegnung).(Buber,25)

WheredoesthisleaveTorah?BuberconceivesrevelationasanencounterwiththePresenceof

God,notasthecommunicationofideasorinstructions.Ahumanresponseiselicited,butnever

givesrisetoagenerallaw,onlytoaunique,subjectivedeedorcommitment;revelationhasno

contentbeyondthe‘presence’.FarfrombeingrestrictedtoaspecificeventatSinai,revelation

isasubjectivecategoryintowhichinnumerablepersonalexperiencesmayfit.Historical


14|P a g e

criticismhasbecome,forBuber,simplyirrelevant;liketheh�asidicmastersheadmires,hedoes

notsomuchreadthetextoftheBibleasplaywithit.

FranzRosenzweig(1886-1929)positsthreeelementsofreality—God,Man,theWorld,rather

likeKant’saprioriconceptsofsoul,world,God;thesethreeelementsrelatethroughthetriadof

creation,revelationandredemption.Heportraysrevelationinfloridlanguage:

The keystone of the somber arch of creation becomes the cornerstone of the bright

house of revelation. For the soul, revelation means the experience of a present which,

while it rests on the presence of a past, nevertheless does not make its home in it but

walks in the light of the divine countenance. (Rosenzweig, 157)

God undergoes a ‘conversion’ from the concealed to the manifest (158)

It is love which meets all the demands here made on the concept of the revealer, the

love of the lover, not of the beloved. Only the love of a lover is such a continually

renewed self-sacrifice … (162)

(The Soul) … man … is the other pole of revelation (167)

The I discovers itself at the moment when it asserts the existence of the Thou by

inquiring into its Where. (175)

‘I have sinned.’ Thus speaks the soul and abolishes shame … ‘I have sinned’ means I

was a sinner. With this acknowledgement of having sinned, however, the soul clears

the way for the acknowledgement ‘I am a sinner.’ And this acknowledgement is

already the full admission of love. (180)

InalettertohisdiscipleGlatzer,whohadsaidthatonlytheelectionofIsraelcamefromGod,

butthedetailsofthelawwerefrommanalone,hequestionedwhetheronecoulddrawsorigid

aboundarybetweenwhatthedivineandthehuman(Glatzer,242).Admittedly,observanceof

thelawcannotbebased,asS.R.Hirschdemanded,onhistoricalclaimsaboutitsrevelationat

Sinai.(Glatzer,238)Onlyindoingdoweactuallycometoperceivethelawasarticulatingthe

RevelationofGod:

What do we know when we do? Certainly not that all of these historical and

sociological explanations are false. But in the light of doing, of the right doing in

which we experience the reality of the Law, the explanations are of superficial and


15|P a g e

subsidiary importance … Only in the commandment can the voice of him who

commands be heard. (Glatzer, 245)

RosenzweigissayingthatthespecificcommandmentsofTorahharkbackinthepracticeofthe

faithfultothecommandmentoflovewhichemergesinthedialogueofGod,Man,World.

Sociology and Hermeneutics

IntheopeningpagesofJudaismasaCivilizationMordecaiM.Kaplan(1881-1983)diagnoses‘the

presentcrisisinJudaism’asarisingfromthelossoffaithconsequentonmodernity.Butthere

canbenoreturntoanoutmodedbeliefsystem;Judaism,anditsrangeofobservancesand

customs,arebestunderstoodsociologically,asa‘civilization’,andinthiscontextretaintheir

meaningandvitality.Ourexperienceofthesacred,asÉmileDurkheimargued,isafunctionof

socialsolidarity;‘thereligiousconsciousnessis,thus,themostintimatephaseofthegroup

consciousness’(Kaplan,333).What,then,ofGod?‘TheGod-ideaineverycollectivereligion

functionsnotasanintellectualassenttoaproposition,butasanorganicacceptanceofcertain

elementsinthelifeandenvironmentofthegroup…ascontributingtoone’sself-fulfilmentor

salvation’(Kaplan,317).Revelation,thatis,isreducedtoasortofcollectiveculturalexperience

oftheJewishpeople,articulatedinlanguageaboutGod.

AbrahamJoshuaHeschel(1907-1972),apersonalistphilosopher,reactedagainstboththe

excessiveabstractionofmedievalJewishphilosopherssuchasMaimonidesandthesystematic

philosophyofHermannCohen.‘Asareportaboutrevelation,theBibleitselfisMidrash,’wrote

Heschel(GodinSearchofMan,185).NeilGillmanexplains:

To characterize the entire Torah as a midrash is to say that it is, in its entirety, a human

understanding of a ‘text’ which, in its pristine, original form, is beyond human

awareness … It is a ‘cultural’ document because it preserves a human community’s

understanding of God’s presence and will for that community, and that perception

inevitably reflects the cultural conditions in which it was originally formulated. But it

remains ‘divine’ because it is God’s presence and will that the community insists it is

perceiving. (Gillman, The Death of Death. Woodstock Vt 1997, 32)

LikePaulTillich,Hescheldefinedreligionasconcernabout‘ultimate’questions;‘involvement’in

theexperienceunderconsiderationwaswhatmattered,notthehistoricalinvestigationoftexts.


16|P a g e

Inthemonumental,butunfinished,threeHebrewvolumesinwhichhesoughttoreconcilehis

ownconvictionswiththetraditionalunderstandingof‘TorahfromHeaven’,hecontraststwo

typesoftheology,whichhereadsintostatementsattributedtothesecond-centurySages,Akiva

andIshmael.Heschelhelpfullysumsup(HeavenlyTorah,42):

There were thus two points of views among the Sages: (1) a transcendent point of

view, comprising a method of thought always open to the higher realms, striving to

understand matters of Torah through a supernal lens; and (2) an immanent point of

view, comprising a method of thought modest and confined, satisfied to understand

matters of Torah through an earthly lens defined by human experience.

Akiva’s‘transcendentpointofview’hereisthenotionthattheearthlyTorahisacopyofthe

heavenlyprototype,justasphysicalobjectsare,inPlato’sview,merecopiesof‘ideas’;the

Ishmaeleanview,incontrast,islabelled‘immanent’or‘terrestrial’toindicatethatthatthe

earthlyTorahisthevehiclethroughwhichGod’sactualteachinghasenteredandispresentin

thematerialworld.

InFebruary/March1976theFrenchJewishphilosopherEmmanuelLevinas(1906-1995)took

part,togetherwithPaulRicoeur(1913-2005)andothers,inaseminaronrevelationatthe

SchoolofReligionandPhilosophyoftheSaint-LouisUniversityinBrussels.Thenoveltyofthis

seminarlayinthebroadinterpretationofrevelationasaphenomenoncommontothemajor

religions,andinthesympatheticre-readingof‘revelation’inthelightofphenomenologyand

hermeneutics.Howcanatranscendentrevelationproducetruthsthatarenotamenabletothe

all-encompassingfacultyofreason?

Our world lies before us, enabling us, in its coherence and constancy, to perceive it, to

enjoy it … Within this world, it appears that the opening of certain books can cause

the abrupt invasion of truths from outside — from where? — dated according to the

‘chronology’ of Sacred History … And, in the case of the Jews, this sacred history

leads, without any break in its continuity, to the ‘historian’s history’, which is profane

history. (Hand, 191, tr. Sarah Richmond)

Levinasanswers:

This exteriority … cannot be transformed into a content within interiority; it remains

‘uncontainable’, infinite (infinie), and yet the relation is maintained … we may find a

model for this relation in the attitude of non-indifference to the Other, in the


17|P a g e

responsibility towards him … it is precisely through this relation than man becomes

his ‘self’ (moi) … and – in this sense – free. Ethics provides the model worthy of

transcendence and it is as an ethical kerygma that the Bible is Revelation … The

Revelation, described in terms of the ethical relation or the relation with the Other, is a

mode of the relation with God and discredits both the figure of the Same and

knowledge in their claim to be the only site of meaning (signification). (Hand, 207-8)

Thatis,the‘sacredhistory’cannotbecapturedinwordsorrationaldiscourse,butit

neverthelessimpingesonrealhumanbeingswhentheycomefacetofacewiththe‘other’inthe

ethicalsphere.

Levinasisatpainstoexplain,againstRicoeur,thatrevelationisprescriptiveratherthan

dogmatic;itconfrontshumansbystimulatingcommentaryonitstexts,acommentarywhichis

nevercomplete,hencetheongoingnatureofrabbinicdiscoursethroughOralTorah,orthe‘oral

revelation’,ashecallsit.Althougheveryindividualissummonedto‘obedience’byengagingin

thecommentary,itsdetailsarebynomeanssubjectiveandarbitrary,butconfined(thoughnot

preciselydetermined)bythe‘continuityofreadingsthroughhistory’.(Hand,196)

Thoughthetruthsofrevelationareabsoluteanduniversal,revelationhastoappearinaspecific

setting:‘Therevelationofmorality,whichdiscoversahumansociety,alsodiscoverstheplaceof

election,whichinthisuniversalsociety,returnstothepersonwhoreceivestherevelation’.

(Levinas,21)

Ethicsmaybethepointatwhichthetranscendenteruptsintohumanreason,buttheeruption

(‘revelation’)doesnotstopthere;inthespecificinstanceoftheTorahandtheJewishpeopleit

carrieswithitthefull‘commentary’ofthehalakhicandaggadictraditionandtheexperienceof

theJewishpeople.

Conservative Judaism

Emetve-Emunah:StatementofPrinciplesofConservativeJudaismwasissuedin1988byrabbis

andlayofficialsoftheConservativeSynagogueofAmerica;theauthors(p.14)statethatwhile

theybelievethattheStatement‘presentsaconsensusoftheviewsofthemovement,itshould

notbenecessarytopointoutthattheStatementofPrinciplesofConservativeJudaismisnota

catechismoratestoffaith’.


18|P a g e

Theyaffirmbeliefinrevelationas‘theuncoveringofanexternalsourceoftruthemanatingfrom

God…notahumaninvention’.RevelationteachesusaboutGodandaboutourroleinHis

world;bothrelativismandfundamentalismaretoberejected.Whilethe‘singlegreatestevent

inthehistoryofGod'srevelationtookplaceatSinai’,revelationcontinuedthroughProphets,

SagesandRabbistothepresentday.Alternativeconceptionsareoutlined,rangingfrom

personalencounter,withorwithoutpropositionalcontent,through‘ineffablehumanencounter

withGod’,whichmayinspiretheverbalformulationbyhumanbeingsofnormsandideas,tothe

continuingdiscovery,throughnatureandhistory,oftruths,culturallyconditioned,aboutGod

andtheworld.(p.18)

Defence: the a priori Torah Ina1944Hebrewessay(Englishversion:Soloveitchik1983),JosephDov(Ber)Soloveitchik

(1903-1993)createdathreefoldtypology:ScientificMan(cognitive,objective),seeksto

measure,discover,control;ReligiousMan(subjective),seeksmysteryandthepreservationof

the‘dynamicrelationshipbetweensubjectandobject’.Thethirdtype,HalakhicMan,bridges

thedividebetweenthetwo:neithertranscendentnorsuperficial,halakhicman‘comeswithhis

Torah,giventohimatSinai...likeamathematicianwhoformsanidealworldandusesitto

establisharelationshipbetweenhimselfandtherealworld’.Halakhah,thatis,constitutesan

independentapriorirealmthatconfrontsandbridgestheopposingworldsofscienceand

religion.

Soloveitchikattemptstobypasscriticalquestionsbyplacingrevelation,equatedwithhalakha,

beyondthereachofhistory,likemathematics.Butthisrestsontwoquestionableassumptions.

Oneisthatthecontentofrevelationmaybereducedtohalakha(law);theother,thatlaw(at

least,revealedlaw)hassomekindofindependentontologicalstatus.However,ridingabove

mundanehistoricalrealityisnotarealisticstrategy.Laws,includingthesystemofhalakha,

muchofwhichwasintroducedbyrabbisinresponsetolocalsituations,relatetospecific

societies.Moreover,lawbynomeansexhauststhecontentofscripturalRevelation.

Holocaust Theology ApparentinjusticeintheworldhasalwayschallengedtheclaimthatGodisrevealedasjustand

merciful;thechallengewasaugmentedbytheHolocaust.EmilFackenheim(1916-2003)argued

thattheShoahwasequalinitssignificancetoanewrevelation;hecondemnedtheologianswho


19|P a g e

continuedtoteachaftertheHolocaust‘asthoughnothinghadhappened.’Fackenheim

groundedhisowninterpretationofthisnewrevelationintheconceptoftiqqun(repair,

restoration),adaptedfromtheLurianictheoryofcreation:‘AphilosophicalTikkunispossible

aftertheHolocaustbecauseaphilosophicalTikkunalreadytookplace,howeverfragmentarily,

duringtheHolocaustitself’(Fackenheim,266),intheactualresistanceofShoahvictimsto

whomnorealistichoperemained.

IrvingGreenbergmaintainsthattheShoahshatteredthenaivefaithinthecovenantof

redemption,inauguratingathirderatheshapeofwhichisdeterminedbyourresponsetothe

crisisoffaith.Auschwitzwas‘acalltohumanstostoptheHolocaust,acalltothepeopleIsrael

torisetoanew,unprecedentedlevelofcovenantalresponsibility.’Jewstodayhaveaspecial

responsibility,infidelitytothosewhoperished,toworkfortheabolitionofthatmatrixofvalues

thatsupportedgenocide.

Suchreflectionsarenotsomuchtheologiesofrevelationasattemptstorestoreasenseofthe

PresenceofGodnotwithstandingtheterribleeventsHehasallowedtotakeplace.

The Feminist Critique Solongassocietyatlargedidnotquestionthesubordinationofslavesorwomen,few

theologiansweretroubledeither.ButtheBibleacceptsboththeinstitutionofslaveryandthe

subordinationofwomenevenif,asmanyargue,itintroducesmeasurestoameliorateboth.

Feminism,likeslavery,hasleadtheologianstoconfrontafundamentalissueconcerningthe

culture-boundednessofdivinerevelation.TamarRoss,writingindefenceofaModern

Orthodoxposition,articulatedthequestion:

What makes the feminist analysis unique is that the ultimate question it raises does not

concern any particular difficulty in the contents of the Torah (be it moral, scientific, or

theological). Nor does it concern the accuracy of the historical account of its literary

genesis. Highlighting an all-pervasive male bias in the Torah seems to display a more

general skepticism regarding divine revelation that is much more profound. What it

drives us to ask is, Can any verbal message claiming revelatory status really be divine?

Because language itself is shaped by the cultural context in which it is formulated … is

a divine and eternally valid message at all possible? Can a verbal message transcend

its cultural framework? … Allegorical interpretations of problematic passages in the


20|P a g e

Torah will not solve anything in this case. The male bias cannot be limited to specific

terms or passages; it is all over the text. (Ross EPT, 186)

InresponseRossdevelopsaconceptshecalls‘cumulativerevelation’.Thisrestsonthree

assumptions:‘Revelationisacumulativeprocess:adynamicunfoldingoftheoriginalTorah

transmittedatSinai’;God’svoiceisheardthroughtherabbinicalexpositionoftexts;‘Although

successivehearingsofGod’sTorahsometimesappeartocontradictHisoriginalmessage,that

messageisneverreplaced.’(EPT197-198)

ThethirdassumptiondistinguishesRoss’spositionfromreformistunderstandingofprogressive

revelation;Rossisunwillingtoconcedethatthelatestaccumulatedrevelationcontradictsor

replacesearlierformulations.‘Iffeministmoralityismorethanapassingfad,itislikelythatthe

interpretivetraditionwilldiscoverthatsomeofthevaluesexpressedbythefeministsareindeed

thoseoftheTorahandshouldbepursuedaccordingly’(EPT222).Butwhoarticulatesthe

‘interpretivetradition’?RossappealstotheauthorityofRavKook(AbrahamIsaacKook,1865-

1935):

By positing a supernal Torah and successive unfolding of that Torah as progressive

revelations of a pre-existent ideal, R. Kook concludes that if certain unprecedented

ideas or norms become absorbed within tradition, it is a fair indication of the workings

of divine providence. Such providence is attuned … to our gradually maturing

spiritual sensibilities.’ (EPT 205)

‘As If’ ManyModernOrthodoxaswellasConservativescholarshavefoundtheclaimsofcriticalBible

studyirresistibleandmodifiedtheirunderstandingofrevelationaccordingly.JamesKugel(2007)

arguesthatthefindingsofmodernacademicBiblestudyareprimarilyofacademicinterest;

whatthewordsofscripturemayhavemeantintheirancientcontextshasnobearingonthe

Jewishinterpretationofthesewords.The‘OralTorah,’notthewrittentext,istheprimary

vehicleofaccesstoGodandrevelationforJews;serviceofGodforthefaithfulJewmeans

activelyengagingandinterpretingtheTorahalongthetrajectoryplottedbytheRabbisintheir

attempttokeeptheTorahaflexibleandlivingdocument.

MenachemKellner(1999)maintainsthatwhatcountsinJudaismispracticeratherthandogma.

TherearethingsthatJewsmustprofesstobelieve,suchasGod’scovenantwithIsrael,the


21|P a g e

obligationtoobservethecommandments,sanctityoftheTorah,etc.,butthereisnoneedto

haveanyspecificideainmindbehindtheseprofessions.Onecansincerelyprofessbeliefinthe

divinityoftheTorah,abstainingfromdefinition,whileadheringtohalakhicpractice.

MarcBrettler(2012,57)simultaneouslyupholdsthediscoveriesofbiblicalcriticismandlivesthe

lifeofanobservantJew.Forhim‘theBibleisasourcebookthatI—withinmycommunity—make

intoatextbook.Idosobyselecting,revaluing,andinterpretingtextsthatIcallsacred.TheBible

isthecollectionofancientliteraturethatmycommunityhassanctified.Iamselectiveinusingit

sinceIbelievethattheBiblehascomedowntousthroughhumanhands,andthatthe

revelationwhichitcontainshasbeen,tousethetermofDavidWeissHalivni,(deeply)

‘maculated’ortarnished…Ihopeotherswillrespectmyreconstruction,whichjustifieshowI

leadmyJewishlife,basedonhowIhavemadethissourcebook,thatallJewsshare,intomy

textbook…Itiscrucial,however,toengageinthisreworkingsothattheethicalproblems

suggestedbyaliteralreadingofcertainplacesoftheBible—xenophobia,misogyny,

homophobia—arenottransferredintothetextbook.’

Myownapproach(Solomon2012)hasbeentotheretainthetraditionallanguageofrevelation,

includingthatoftheuniqueRevelationatSinai,whileinterpretingthatlanguageinaccordance

withanthropologicalmodels:asknotwhathappenedatMountSinai,buthowthenarrative

functionswithinthecommunityitdefines.Asafoundationalmyth,bindingtogetherstories,

laws,interpretationsandexperiencesofJewsthroughtheagesandconferringauthorityonthe

ritualsinwhichtheseareexpressed,itpossessesgreatpower.Butitisnomoredependenton

historicalverificationthan,say,theworthofSophocles’Oedipusrestsonwhetherthekingof

Thebesreallykilledhisfather.

NormanSolomon RevelationintheJewishTradition

References *Recommendedreading

Brettler,MarcZvi,PeterEnnsandDanielJ.Harrington,TheBibleandtheBeliever:HowtoRead

theBibleCriticallyandReligiously.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012.

*Buber,Martin,IandThou,tr.andintro.RonaldGregorSmith.LondonandGlasgow:Collins

Fontana,1961.

Cohen,Hermann,ReligionofReasonoutoftheSourcesofJudaism,tr.SimonKaplan.NewYork:

FrederickUnger,1972.

Donagan,Alan,Spinoza.NewYork:HarvesterWheatsheaf,1988.

Emetve-Emunah:StatementofPrinciplesofConservativeJudaism,ed.RobertGordis.NewYork:

JTSA1988.

Fackenheim,Emil,ToMendtheWorld:FoundationsofFutureJewishThought.NewYork:

Schocken,1982.

Glatzer,NahumN.,FranzRosenzweig:HisLifeandThought.NewYork:Schocken,1961.

*Haberman,JoshuaO.,PhilosopherofRevelation:TheLifeandThoughtofS.L.Steinheim.

Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1989.

Hand,Séan(ed.andtr.)TheLevinasReader.Oxford:Blackwell,1989.

Heschel,AbrahamJoshua,GodinSearchofMan:APhilosophyofJudaism.NewYork:Farrar,

StrausandCudahy,1955.

—,TheProphets.NewYork:Harper&Row,1962(1sted.)

—,HeavenlyTorah:AsRefractedthroughtheGenerations,ed.andtr.GordonTuckerwith

LeonardLevin.NewYork:Continuum,2005.

Idel,Moshe,Kabbala:NewPerspectives.NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress,1988.

Jacobs,Louis,BeyondReasonableDoubt(London:LittmanLibraryofJewishCivilization,1999).

*Kaplan,MordecaiM.,JudaismasaCivilization:TowardaReconstructionofAmericanJewish

Life.WithanewintroductoryessaybyArnoldEisen.Philadelphia:JewishPublication

Society,1994.FirstpublishedNewYork:Macmillan,1934.

23|P a g e

Kellner,Menachem,MustaJewBelieveAnything?London:LittmanLibraryofJewishCivilization,

1999.

Kugel,JamesL.,HowtoReadtheBible:AGuidetoScriptureThenandNow.NewYork:Free

Press,2007,chapter36.

Maimonides,Moses,TheGuideofthePerplexed,tr.ShlomoPines.2vols.Chicago:Universityof

ChicagoPress,1963.

Meyer,MichaelA.,ResponsetoModernity:AHistoryoftheReformMovementinJudaism.New

York:OxfordUniversityPress,1988.

Rosenzweig,Franz,TheStarofRedemption,tr.WilliamW.Hallo.Boston:BeaconPressand

London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1971.

*Ross,Tamar,ExpandingthePalaceofTorah:OrthodoxyandFeminism.Waltham,Mass.:

BrandeisUniversityPress,2004.

SaadiaGaon,TheBookofBeliefsandOpinions,tr.SamuelRosenblatt.NewHaven,Conn.:Yale

UniversityPress,1976.

Schäfer,Peter,TheOriginsofJewishMysticism.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2011.

Scholem,GershomG.,OriginsoftheKabbalah,rev.R.J.ZviWerblowsky,tr.AllanArkush.

Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSocietyofAmerica,1987.

Shear-Yashuv,Aharon,TheTheologyofSalomonLudwigSteinheim.Leiden:E.J.Brill,1986.

*Solomon,Norman,TorahfromHeaven:TheReconstructionofFaith.Oxford:LittmanLibraryof

JewishCivilization,2012.

*Soloveitchik,JosephB.,HalakhicMan,tr.LawrenceKaplan.Philadelphia:JewishPublication

SocietyofAmerica,1983.

Spinoza,Benedictde,ATheologico-PoliticalTreatise.Tr.R.H.M.Elwes.NewYork:Dover

Publications,1951.(Translationfirstpublished1883)

revelation in the jewish tradition - norman solomon preprint.pdffound in the mystical works known...

Documents