I'd like you to know that I attended a Southern Baptist Church for a couple of years and have many, many friends in that tradition. They do indeed describe themselves as "Biblical Literalists" and I have heard on more than one occasion people from my old congregation and from within the Southern Baptist tradition in other parts of the state (of Florida) and the country (The Southern Baptist convention draws folks from around the US certainly and I attended in 2000) self-describe themselves as "literalists."
When they do so, I have asked them exactly what they mean by that. The usual answer is that they take every word of the Bible literally. As the literal truth. Whether or not they also see a figurative meaning in the stories is immaterial, but I do believe that they see that deeper or more subtle meaning too. It would be odd for them not to, really, since many of the doctrines that most of them adhere to are not strictly spelled out verbatim or specifically in the Bible, and they are Bible-centered.
The things they tend to take literally are: 1) God created the world in 6 days. Whether those were actual 24 hour days or something a tad longer is a matter for debate, but the sequence is assured. The fact that there are slight differences between Genesis 1 and 2 is not a problem. Both are literally true. Period.
2) Adam and Eve were real people created by God in the ways spelled out in Genesis. The actions described and decisions made actually happened.
3) Almost to a person, they are "young earth creationists" meaning that the earth is at most 12,000 years old, and probably somewhat closer to 6,000 years old.
The list goes on. But they are literalist in the strictest sense of the word and they self-describe as that. This is also not true of all Southern Baptists. It is a congregational church, meaning that like-minded people can gather together, find a preacher who agrees with their most important doctrinal ideas and form a church. There's no denominational standard that is imposed from an overriding church hierarchy. So, it's also possible to find Southern Baptists who are not literalists. Its just that in my limited experience of Biblical literalists, most have been Southern Baptists. That's certainly an artifact of belonging to one congregation and living in Central Florida and West Central Texas for a time.
As for the rest of it, I hereby change my prior statement to read "the relationship between man and God is, to me the more relevant aspect of the story of the fall in comparison to the question of Adam and Eve's physical immortality.
I would also like to call your attention to two things that you may have missed, or have decided to ignore:
1)From my first post in this thread:
quote: Surely this is too simplistic an analysis.
Surely there must be compelling reasons for those who DO take Scripture to be LITERALLY true.
2) From my post in reply to your post:
quote:Granted, but I get the sense that if all I did was reword my earlier post to say that man's relationship to God is the MORE relevant aspect of the story, you'd still be angry with me. I'm not exactly sure why, though.
I believe I was entirely warranted from the tone you've taken to sense that you would remain angry even if I made the proposed change. That is not an assumption on my part and it isn't based on my personal theology. It's based on your behavior toward me. If you choose to be abusive to people, I think you should expect them to treat you as if you are unlikely to stop doing it, even if they attempt to alter a statement.
Further, since I had no idea what was bugging you, and still don't have a clear sense of why it bugged you so much, I feel it's also worth pointing out that from my perspective your reaction was unwarranted and the change I've now made to my prior statement seems like a small and simple thing, I just don't understand why all the fuss and why you had to get so belligerent about it.
quote:I was trying to find out more about Rashi (since I really know nothing). One site said that he was active 1040 to 1105.
*laugh* If by "active" you mean "alive," then yes.
quote: It also mentions the midrash and the TaNaCH.
Could be any of the many online sources discussing him, but let me guess that it was this one (and FYI, for future reference, the Jewish Virtual Library is a good source). If not, that's a good one.
quote:Then it points to a translation of Genesis called the Bereshit.
*laughs hard* Sorry. Very sorry. *breathes* Ok, Bereshit (or Bereshis, depending on pronunciation) is simply the original Hebrew word for Genesis. Any traditional Jewish source will refer to both the first volume and the first portion within it as Bereshit.
As far as the specific translation, I can't tell you what it is. But I can tell you that's no traditional Jewish translation I am familiar with. If you say it's the KJV, I believe you. The problem is, I am aware of few if any decent English translations done using traditional Jewish sources that are not still under copyright. So most online sources won't have any.
Chabad does, but they limit it to the current week's portion (and even after playing around with it a bit, I couldn't make it show anything else). The good news is, the cycle is about to restart. Try that link on the 27th and/or 28th, and it should have Bereshis, with Rashi's commentary on the side. They do have an RSS feed available.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
lol. Thanks Rivka. That was the right link to the source I found the most info on. When I clicked on the TaNaCH link, it had the link to uncommented Bereshit (their spelling, not mine, btw).
I'm laughing hardest because I should've known it was the name for the first book of the Pentateuch.
Anyway, on that link, it had text for this bit of chapter two that matched what the KJV had. That's not to say it WAS the KJV, but that the texts were identical.
I wouldn't mind paying money for a good commentary in easy-to-read English. Would you know of one that's particularly accurate? What I'm most looking for would be something that recorded the originally-oral history (is that the midrash?) (feel free to laugh again) as well as the commentary from what would be considered "standard sources" -- if there are such things in the Jewish tradition. Not that modern commentary wouldn't be of interest too, but I'd most interested in the historical side of things. The tradition.
Does that make sense?
As an example, you had a source (I'm assuming in Hebrew, but maybe that was in English?) that explained the different verb tenses and senses of the word "die" in the passage under consideration. I'd be interested in that level of detail, as well as explanations of the text from respected Jewish leaders throughout history.
I'd be most interested in the Pentateuch at this point.
Am I just setting myself up to purchase 100's of volumes or is there a small set or single volume that would do the job?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That was the right link to the source I found the most info on. When I clicked on the TaNaCH link, it had the link to uncommented Bereshit (their spelling, not mine, btw).
*nod* That's why I figured it was the right site. Well, that and your using their spelling of Tanach (which makes sense, as it turns the letters of the Hebrew into capitals, and leaves the vowels (which aren't letters in Hebrew) as lowercase; but it's not how most people spell it in English).
quote: I wouldn't mind paying money for a good commentary in easy-to-read English. Would you know of one that's particularly accurate? What I'm most looking for would be something that recorded the originally-oral history (is that the midrash?) (feel free to laugh again) as well as the commentary from what would be considered "standard sources" -- if there are such things in the Jewish tradition. Not that modern commentary wouldn't be of interest too, but I'd most interested in the historical side of things. The tradition.
Ok. The thing is, there are books that will give you some of it. I was using Artscroll's Chumash (Pentateuch), for instance. It has the Hebrew, a fairly good English translation, Onkelos and Rashi in Hebrew . . . and most useful for what I think you want, a short summary in English of some of the commentaries on each verse.
But it won't help you with everything that you are asking for, because what you are asking for does not exist. I didn't find a source that gave the Hebrew grammar -- I learned enough Hebrew grammar in my years of Jewish day schools and time in Israel to recognize the conjugation. I could also talk about what a doubled verb like that indicates (it's where the "surely" part comes from).
[Oh, and I was wrong. It's not Rashi (there isn't even a Rashi on that verse), I mistakenly assumed that a comment in the Artscroll with an unspecified source meant Rashi (it often does). Having checked my Mikraos Gedolos (no English, but about 13 different commentaries), it looks like that particular understanding of the verse is attributable to the Ramban (Nachmanides). He cites a number of other locations with similar phrasing.]
Bob, here is the thing I don't think you are understanding. You are asking for someone to distill thousands of years of learning and study into one volume -- in English, if you please. I have spent my entire life learning Chumash and Navi. I have good enough Hebrew to read most commentaries and decode about 80% of what they are saying (even the few that are available in translation are only available as entirely separate volumes, and the translations are only adequate). And I am not far beyond a beginner. If I spend a lot more of my time at it than I am currently doing, I should progress to intermediate level understanding in a couple decades. Although I think I'd need to learn Talmud for that, and I'm not (currently, at least) particularly interested.
It is much as if you walked up to my dad, a mathematical physicist whose books are completely incomprehensible to anyone not in the field (except the introductions and acknowledgements -- I understand those! ) and asked him to summarize the last 100 years of physics in one volume. Oh, and no mathematical notation, please.
It cannot be done in any way worth doing, and the request disparages the life's work of many people.
That said, the Artscroll Chumash is a good place to start.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...I wouldn't want to disparage ANYONE's life work. I figured that whatever was out there would be a starting point, not the be-all, end-all of Scriptural commentary.
It is a barrier, though, having to learn (to an exacting level) a second language in order to get a better sense of how scriptures are interpreted within the tradition that gave rise to them.
Seriously, the commentaries I've seen so far from the Christian tradition aren't all that meaningful. Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong ones and I'll find one that does a better job with the historical aspects of things. I just figured there might be something like a primer on the Pentateuch or something. Not a one-volume exhaustive resource.
It seems like it may just be too much effort to attempt to understand the "old testament" from a Jewish perspective if one does not have some fluency in Hebrew (both ancient and modern?) and intend to make a life's study of it.
You yourself have expressed amusement at various interpretations of texts presented on threads here at Hatrack, but if the bar is set so high that the average person can't even access the information (and I don't mean just in a casual web search, but with a reasonable level of effort), then the situation isn't really laughable, it's tragic, IMHO.
It means, for one thing, that Scripture is inaccessible in its depths to anyone except those with advanced knowledge or a lifetime's well-directed study under their belt. While there are many things worth pursuing in that fashion, I think each person can only choose one or two in a lifetime.
Someone who is interested in becoming knowledgeable about Scripture but who starts late in life is at a distinct disadvantage. Some might say they'd be better off giving up rather than try to make up for lost decades.
Fortunately, at least for me, the study of it is interesting enough to be worth some level of serious pursuit. The problem I have, though, is that it is scattershot and some of the "resources" I might wish to be available simply aren't.
It's one of those situations of not knowing what I don't know. I always have found that to be annoying and wish to rectify it.
Since I also don't necessarily think it's a good idea to get ALL of ones information from a single source, doing Bible studies within one tradition or taking everything from one publisher is not such a great idea either.
Oh well. I was hoping there'd be something like an entre into the subject. If this further information brings some resource to mind, then I'd be happy to learn of it.
And I hope you don't think of this as disparaging of anyone's life's work. In reality, the desire to learn more about this subject is tempered by the fact that I have a full time job and lots of other responsibilities. I'm doubtful to ever be a serious student of religion, let alone of a tradition other than my own. I have some interest in it, but I doubt it's enough to see me through several courses in Hebrew at this point.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not think you were doing so deliberately. Not at all. I was pointing merely out how it could be taken.
No one would claim to be a scholar in classics without first learning Greek and Latin, neh?
As far as this
quote: Someone who is interested in becoming knowledgeable about Scripture but who starts late in life is at a distinct disadvantage. Some might say they'd be better off giving up rather than try to make up for lost decades.
. . . well, Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest of the Sages, didn't start until he was in his forties.
quote: Once, while shepherding his flocks, he gazed into a pool, where he saw a hollowed-out rock resting under a waterfall. He wondered how the rock, one of Nature's hardest substances, had been hollowed out. When he was told that the water had, over a long period of time, made the drastic change in the rock, he reasoned as follows:
"If a rock, though extremely hard, can be hollowed out by water, how much more so should it be possible for Torah, which is compared to water, to change my heart, which is soft. I will begin to study it, and try to become a Torah scholar."
The "average person" who is interested in learning the traditional Jewish understanding of these verses is not advised to search either the Web or bookstores. He or she is advised to find classes. People of the Book we may be, but the general model for learning is NOT alone. It is with a teacher (especially for beginners); or at least a chavrusah, a learning partner.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
So now I have a decision to make about when and if I could make such a serious commitment. Unfortunately, learning Hebrew is about as likely as me learning Greek or Latin. I seem capable of learning the present tense and a lot of vocabulary in any language put before me, but as soon as I try to get much beyond that (which equates to about the 1st half-semester's study in a college course) I just fall apart. I end up speaking every language like a 3 year old. <le sigh>
Also, thanks for pointing out how it "could be taken." And for being understanding.
I seem to be capable of giving offense every time I write anything here at Hatrack lately. I've been concerned that I've just lost the ability to communicate.
Not that you implied that, but more like if I'd offended YOU by asking a question, I was REALLY worried.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
The man is sitting less than 5 feet away from a Jewish translation (into English!) of the TaNaCH, a copy of the Biblia Hebraica, and a giant textbook labeled Biblical Hebrew and he asks for online resources.
Not to mention the dozens of commentaries, by Jewish and Christian authors, on my office shelves.
Did you forget who you married, love?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: "If a rock, though extremely hard, can be hollowed out by water, how much more so should it be possible for Torah, which is compared to water, to change my heart, which is soft. I will begin to study it, and try to become a Torah scholar."
That sounds so queer in English, if you don't mind me saying *snigger*. In English it takes so many extra wors to say it... Translations are sometimes ridiculous. I agree with the phrase "tradutore traditore".
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I shouldn't have been posting that late at night. I tend to be even more tactless than usual. I think the issue is less that you have become more able to offend (which I don't see as true at all), but that you have started focusing more often on "ticklish" subjects. You always (as far as I've been around, anyway) did so on occasion -- it was a thread of yours that got me to register on Hatrack just so I could respond! -- but I think it has become more frequent. Don't let that scare you off; you're one of the people I consider a voice of calm reason even when I'm on the other side of the screen frothing at how WRONG you are! (No frothing this time, I promise. )
Dana, I was wondering . . . but I thought maybe your books were still in boxes. (Although as I have mentioned, I don't much care for the JPS translation (which I seem to recall is what you have).)
Jonathan, I happen to agree. It sounds better in the Hebrew . . . and in less self-conscious English. How's this one?
quote: At the age of forty, Akiva's life changed suddenly. One day, while out tending his flocks, he noticed a rock with a strange hole going straight through it. This hole was created by constantly dripping water. Akiva ben Yosef decided then and there to go and learn Torah, for if dripping water could bore a hole into solid rock, then even he, a forty year old man could learn Torah through constant effort. He had to start from scratch, for Akiva ben Yosef did not even know the aleph-bet!
posted
Of course not. Every language has its own "feel" which cannot be captured in translation. I happen to think that's a good thing. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
OK, 3rd post; I don't know what happened to the first 2.
I just wanted to make the point that there are no Biblical literalists. When we find that Christ is the Vine and we are the branches, no one checks himself for leaves or budding grapes.
We tend to use common sense to determine what's meant literally; and it usually works. If not, we can use other people's common sense.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, for what it's worth, I think you've gone out of your way to avoid offending anyone on this topic.
The whole issue of biblical literalism... I think there's a semantic issue. I am convinced that every single word in the Pentateuch was given by God to Moses at Sinai (or during the 40 years of wandering, at any rate). Does that count as biblical literalism? It can't really, because we don't think that the Pentateuch was the main part of the Torah that was given, and we think that the actual meaning of what God told us is preserved in the parts other than the Pentateuch.
So, for example, "An eye for an eye" never meant what it appears to mean literally. Not to us. "Don't seeth a kid in its mother's milk" never meant that literally, either.
Often, when I see people saying that they don't take a biblical literalist view, what they seem to be saying is that everything can be taken as metaphorical. The Orthodox Jewish perspective is diametrically opposed to that kind of view. And yet, it's not literalist in the sense I think people are using here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Chabad does, but they limit it to the current week's portion (and even after playing around with it a bit, I couldn't make it show anything else).
Chabad does have the full Tanach with Rashi over here. With that said, Rivka's note about the deficiencies of translations over study in the original Hebrew are definitely in force.
My favorite Jewish translation of the Five Books of Moses into English is Aryeh Kaplan's The Living Torah, which is online here. Note, however, that this is even further from the original Hebrew; his approach is to take the sense of what's written and write it in contemporary idiomatic English, rather than to go with anything approaching a word-for-word translation.
(Edited to add a case in point, the passage with which Rabbi Kaplan won my heart forever, the end of Genesis 20:9. KJV has thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. NIV has You have done things to me that should not be done. Judaica Press: Deeds that are not done, you have done to me. All reasonable translations, with the last preserving the literal Hebrew wording and syntax. Kaplan? The thing you did to me is simply not done! Love it.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and asked him to summarize the last 100 years of physics in one volume. Oh, and no mathematical notation, please.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was pointing merely out how it could be taken.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
