Rusting Car Bumper

Hi,

I have heard that Orthodox Jews adopted literalism rather early. (That is, they adopted a literalist interprestion of Jewish writings.) By early, I am guessing this means before Chrsitianity gets on its feet.

Does anyone know about the history of judism with respect to this? Has judism changed significantly and when did it?

I know Jews like to claim its been rock solid consistent but I'd like a more unbaised view.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

wow! Nobody?

DC

Toto

There are those more expert than I am on Judaism.

All I know is that Hellenistic Jews, notably Philo, adopted a metaphorical interpretation of scripture. Presumably earlier Jews were literalist.

I don't know if you are talking about the Orthodox Jews of the modern world, and asking when they became fundamentalist after Philo's influence? My impression is that the most fundamentalist of them have borrowed literalism from the Christian fundamentalists, and that it is a reaction against modernism, rather than a surviving doctrine.

Wikipedia article on Jewish Fundamentalism - note that it is "disputed." But it appears that Jewish fundamentalism is several orders of magnitude more complicated than "God said it, that settles it!"

Wallener

Do you mean today's orthodox or whatever was considered orthodox in the second temple era? As best as I can determine, literalism has never gotten a solid foothold in Judaism outside very small sects such as the Karaites. How do you even read the same text for 2500 years in a literal fashion and not get bored?

Also have to ask what you mean by "literalism". Some Jewish streams accept the texts as being "literally" from G-d (only in Hebrew, though, which is a *huge* difference from modern Christian literalist practice) without necessarily reading them "literally".

Rusting Car Bumper

Toto's and your questions are good.

I am being told that (1) Jewish practices have been exactly the same for a long time (meaninging I presume since before Xianity and except for additions along the way) and (2) that Jewish theology until recently is almost entirely literalistic.

DC

GakuseiDon

According to Karen Armstrong in her "History of God", the earliest Jews were not literalists. They recorded the Exodus account knowing that this was not literal history. I think "liberal" and "literal" views have co-existed from the very start.

Wallener

May I ask - are you being told this by a Jew?

There are at least 4 distinct liturgical streams in Judaism, so that takes care of that. You can't find two Jews in the same era sitting in the same synagogue who practice the same way, never mind two Jews from different eras.

Going back at least until the late 2nd temple era it was widely accepted that literal readings of the texts were the least important and least useful. The four levels of Torah interpretation are:

We have a document formalizing this approach dating from the 12th century, but the same techniques are evident in Talmud so we can be reasonably sure they extend well back into BCE territory. In either case, you're dealing with a date well outside any reasonable definition of "until recently".

In the classic 11th century Torah commentary by Rashi he points out you - literally - can't get 4 words into the text without having to move to interpretation because the words taken literally simply don't make sense. Here is the first part of his commentary:

And Rashi is considered by many Jews to be "goyyishly literal". IMO, he should be required reading for Christians: not because I think they should accept or believe everything he says, but because it would give them some perspective on how these texts are viewed by the culture that preserved (and continues to preserve) them.

Anat

A Jew finds himself stranded on a desolate island. He immediately founds two synagogues: on in which to pray and one in which never to set his foot.

We know from traditional sources about controversies regarding theology as well as halakha (religious law) at least as far back as 2nd century BCE. We know of cases where Rabbis specifically introduced changes in the way laws were observed in order to solve serious problems of their times. The prime example is the institution of the pruzbul by Hillel, in order to overcome the problem of people refusing to lend money to the poor because the 7th year, in which all debts are supposed to be absolved, was approaching.

Steven Avery

Even in this, Rashi is simply giving a midrashic interpretation, and justifying same, in addition to the clear sense, not in opposition. Also note that the absolute textual primacy (perfection) is being used as the base, even including the vowel points. Whether the emphasis is on pshat or midrash, the text itself is viewed as the source.

Backreading the 4-fold interpretation from the 12th century to ancient times due to Talmudic discussions to me seems a little dubious. I would be curious if you would indicate what you think best exemplifies and justifies this back application. In addition they will back-apply the concept even to the Targumim, which is ultra-dubious.

Shalom,
Praxis
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Anat

The Orthodox Jewish ways to read the HB can be viewed as 'literal' in the sense that the interpretations rely on the precise Hebrew wording. Many discussions are over points in the line of - 'This could have been worded in manner A but in fact was worded in manner B. What is the significance of the difference?' However, the reading isn't literal in the sense that one can understand exactly what happened just from reading.