Many are familiar with Maimonides' explanation of sacrifices in the Guide to the Perplexed (3:32), where he maintains that the inclusion of sacrifices in the Torah was a concession to the people, who had a desire to imitate the pagan norms of worship at the time. This is only partially correct.
First off, while yes, the Israelites certainly would have wanted to follow local norms of worship, the Torah's prescribing of sacrifice does not reflect any language of "concession" but rather wholehearted agreement with the institution of sacrifice. Secondly, even if the author(s) of the Torah knew full well that sacrifice was not intrinsically necessary, meaning that God did not need to be fed and cared for in this way, it would still be important to maintain sacrifice, not just as a concession, but as a matter of national dignity. How could it be that other nations would show so much care and devotion to their gods, spreading out the best of the land in daily meals and incense before them, whereas we Israelites do not care enough for our God to offer even so much as a crumb. It does not look good for the nation, or for our God.
This as well answers the question about the Torah's inclusion of the "Akeida," the binding of Isaac. To be sure, we would all like to explain like the 14th Century commentator Ibn Caspi that Abraham's test was not to sacrifice Isaac. But not only does he stand fairly alone among the classical commentators in offering such an interpretation, really the Torah itself seems to clearly indicate otherwise. Abraham passed the test precisely because of his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, his beloved son and heir. The question of course is how could God have commanded such a sacrifice when the Torah later goes on to warn the people against following the idolatrous practices of other nations: "Do not do this to the Lord your God, because every abomination of the Lord that He hates they did to their gods; for even their sons and daughters they will burn in fire for their gods." (Deut. 12:31)
Clearly the Torah is against child sacrifice, and the fact that the angel stopped Abraham attests to this. However, the Torah also recognized the need to have Abraham effectively sacrifice his son. Why? Because this was the way, par excellence, for a person in the ancient world to demonstrate their unequivocal devotion to their God. And if mere laypeople of other nations were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, to give their most prized possession, their own flesh and blood, how is it that Abraham, the "father of many peoples," the leader and progenitor of the Israelites, could not also give on this level? If he had not, it may have looked as if he lacked adequate credentials for leadership, to be God's ever-willing agent and selfless servant. It would have been beneath our national dignity, beneath God's dignity, to appear "lesser" than the nations in this regard.
Moving forward in time, prayer eventually eclipsed sacrifice as the Jewish mode of worship. Indeed, part of this owed to the destruction of the Second Temple. However, the institution of prayer had already been established well before the destruction. Clearly, just as the original Israelites wished to worship in the manner of the nations by offering sacrifices, so too did later generations desire to utilize prayer, which presumably became a mode of worship in common use by other nations, such as the Greeks. When the Temple was destroyed, prayer by default became the only mode of worship allowed. But in all probability, once sacrifice was all but rooted out of "civilized" religion and was looked upon as a vestige of paganism, of primitive religion, the notion that sacrifice could no longer be performed would have come as a welcome relief to most Jews. That is to say, prayer was now the proper mode of worship. And just as with sacrifices, it would have been below the dignity of the Jewish religion not to honor its God with prayer.
This transition was most certainly connected with the increasing appeal of Christianity. With the advent of a "New Testament" which resonated with the higher moral sensibilities of people at the time, it became beneath the dignity of a
religion to have a "wrathful" God. In earlier times such a God was magnificent, powerful,
respected, an honor for a people to have. No longer. But rather than add to God's word, the Jewish methodology was to reinterpret it, mold it into something acceptable. Midrash in essence saved us from the ignominy of a wrathful God. In the Biblical view, an affront to God's honor was worthy of wholesale slaughter, innocents and children alike. As much as it may be difficult for us to comprehend, this was not considered to be morally problematic at the time. In Talmudic times however, and in the Midrash, such cruel or unjustifiably harsh punishment on the part of God would be totally unacceptable. So the Midrash adds detail to the story, justifications and qualifications, to soften the blow as it were, so as to bring God in line with a more dignified conception. Likewise, the Torah extends the death penalty rather liberally according to the text. In rabbinic interpretation however, capital punishment in the Torah serves largely as a warning, which only very rarely and under the most extreme
circumstances would actually be carried out.
Fast forward once again to the post-Enlightenment, post-Scientific Revolution, modern era. Whereas religion once served as the beacon of light to the world, offered answers which could be fully digested by the intellectual mind, science and secular scholarship now began to command far greater attention and respect. At the early stages, it would have been beneath the dignity of most anyone to call themselves an "atheist" per se. However, the theological dogma became softened among many intellectuals, who were attracted to more to "deistic" ideas (a more naturalistic conception of God) rather than traditional theism, with its belief in Divine oversight and judgment, Heaven and Hell, miracles, and so forth. It would be beneath the dignity of an enlightened thinker to entertain fundamentalist beliefs. However, it would also be unseemly to profess in public the denial of a God/Creator altogether.
Nowadays, throughout the non-fundamentalist world, it is perfectly acceptable to call oneself an agnostic or an atheist. However, there is still a certain level stigma attached to non-belief, as evidenced by politicians who commonly pander to religious groups by professing their belief in God and Jesus Christ. Evangelical or otherwise fundamentalist Christians certainly do not see it as "beneath the dignity" of Jews to take the Bible literally. Yet in more secular circles, which includes the vast majority of academic and scholarship circles, Torah and Orthodoxy are grouped with all other forms of religious fundamentalism, being at best quaint, naive and sorely deluded, and at worst a danger to free society. Torah Jews are seen as blind followers of religious doctrine, denying basic facts about the origin and age of the Universe and the development of life on Earth. They are seen as teaching their children to believe in myth and superstition, holding fast to antiquated notions about women and gays, and to varying degrees as rejecting the value of secular knowledge and studies. And they would be correct in this.
It is contrary to the honor and dignity of Torah, and of Jewish civilization, for such beliefs and attitudes (and in some cases, practices) to be perpetuated. It should be beneath the dignity of any people who seeks truth, who eschews the worship of falseness, to carry on professing myth to be reality, and reality be the product of a "secular agenda". It will eventually be beneath our dignity to walk into synagogue with the intent of worshiping a God. All this is a "Chilul HaShem", a blight on the name of Torah and Judaism.
That, in brief, is another example of what is "wrong" with God.
AJ –
ReplyDeleteBecause of space restrictions, I need to make this comment in 2 parts.
A few preliminary comments. First, it can be argued that the Torah prohibition of sacrifice anywhere but the Jerusalem Temple indicates a desire to restrict the practice of sacrifice. I think that this restriction was unique among any form of worship at the time. So, the Rambam’s view of “concession” is, I think, defensible.
Second, trying to draw any conclusions from the Akeida is dangerous. This is a complex and troubling passage. Many of my teachers have indicated their disappointment that Abraham did not loudly protest or try harder to circumvent the initial order to sacrifice Isaac. Besides, we have other stories of Abraham (and other persons) arguing with God, and even winning the argument. If the Akeida was necessary to defend Jewish “dignity”, were these other stories “undignified”?
Third, you put forward the idea that the Jews adopted prayer (in lieu of sacrifice) in part because it had become “a mode of worship in common use by other nations”. This is a problematic statement, in large part because “prayer” is such a difficult thing to define APART from the practices of a single group, and even WITHIN the practices of a particular group. If we’re thinking of prayer as a personal address to a divine figure, it’s likely that prayer has existed as long as there has been belief in divine figures. But if you want to consider when sacrifice would have been an embarrassment to the Jewish people, or when Jews would need to have engaged in prayer in order to uphold their national dignity … agreed that TODAY the reinstitution of cultic sacrifice would lower the world-wide opinion of Judaism. But I see no evidence that this was the case 2,000+ years ago, when ritualized prayer became an established part of Jewish practice.
Finally … if your argument is that Jews and Judaism are affected by the cultures in which they come in contact … well, of course! What serious person would argue that Judaism exists in a bubble? At the same time, there have always been aspects of Judaism that are distinct to Judaism, and that have caused us trouble in our dealings with other nations. For example, the idea that Judaism represents both a faith and a people is one that was perfectly acceptable 2,000 years ago, but creates problems for us today.
But if we consider the question historically, it is obvious that there have been long stretches of time where the question was not how Jews could exist with “dignity” alongside other nations, but whether the “dignity” of a Jew required him or her to cease being Jewish. The quest for the “dignified Jew”, the Jew that could be accepted as a good Greek, or a good Roman, or a good citizen of the modern nation-state, is itself problematic. I personally believe in the value of Jewish conduct that reflects well on Jewish people. But I have to acknowledge that the quest for the “dignified Jew” has sometimes produced bad Judaism without improving the way that Jews are viewed by others.
Here is my part 2:
ReplyDeleteAll of this leads to your main argument. I admit, I think your argument was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek! Might there come a day when belief in God is viewed to be something as primitive as animal sacrifice? I guess so! But we’re not there yet, in fact we’re not anywhere CLOSE to getting there yet. In fact, I’d say, just the opposite. Where I live in the U.S. (in as secular a city as you can find in the U.S.), the “dignity” of the Jewish people is affected by the fact that Jews don’t talk much about God. I am asked by my Christian friends whether Jews “really believe in God”. But to make the point more generally: in ANY circle where I travel, the status (or if you prefer, “dignity”) of God-believers is MUCH higher than the status of atheists. And I am not Orthodox, and I live in a context that (I think) any Orthodox Jew would see as secular. Moreover, I’d say in my 57 years that the “dignity” of God-believers has increased substantially relative to that of atheists. The prevailing post-modern trend seems to be towards greater God belief.
But as with your problem #1, your problem #2 seems to be with fundamentalist God-belief and not with God-belief per se. If this is your problem, then there’s a lot more to say. Let me say it in brief: first, the fundamentalist practices of any religion are often objectionable to those practicing other religions, even when those practitioners are themselves fundamentalists! (The sole exception I can think of is the odd alliance between Jewish and some American Christian fundamentalists.) Second, the logical end-point of your argument is that Jews should not be fundamentalists, which is a far cry from saying that there is something “wrong” with God.
Ultimately (and I think you’re being tongue-in-cheek), you are advancing the notion that the best way to uphold the Torah is to be Jewish in the way that non-Jews would like best. I don’t mean to play the straight man here, but there was a time when Jewish monotheism was not “dignified”, when circumcision was seen as mutilation, where kosher food laws were seen as absurd, and where Sabbath observance was seen as laziness. The “dignity” of the Jewish people requires that we stand for something, even when so standing is unpopular. Popularity and dignity are not the same things.
Larry, to respond to your comments:
ReplyDeleteprohibition of sacrifice anywhere but the Jerusalem Temple indicates a desire to restrict the practice of sacrifice
Maybe, but it also may indicate the desire to concentrate and centralize power - for tax purposes, governing purposes, and ideological purposes (i.e. to keep everyone worshiping the same God).
trying to draw any conclusions from the Akeida is dangerous
It certainly can be, but in my case I'm simply explaining the narrative in the context of the time, not drawing conclusions/teachings for us today.
we have other stories of Abraham (and other persons) arguing with God...were these other stories “undignified”?
Clearly they weren't undignified given the time/place they were written or they wouldn't have been included in the Torah. There was a "dignity" in giving to the fullest, and also a "dignity" in arguing with God when righteousness was at stake.
it’s likely that prayer has existed as long as there has been belief in divine figures
True, and it's even mentioned in the Torah in several places. But you won't find prayer in the Torah (or Tanach for that matter) used as a mode of public worship, or described as being "commanded".
if you want to consider when sacrifice would have been an embarrassment to the Jewish people...I see no evidence that this was the case 2,000+ years ago
I didn't say that that before (or immediately after) the destruction of the Temple that sacrifices were looked at as an embarrassment - I used the criteria of once sacrifice was all but rooted out of "civilized" religion and was looked upon as a vestige of paganism. That may have been several hundred years (or more) after the destruction.
the question was...whether the “dignity” of a Jew required him or her to cease being Jewish (And similarly...) there was a time when Jewish monotheism was not “dignified”, when circumcision was seen as mutilation, where kosher food laws were seen as absurd, and where Sabbath observance was seen as laziness.
These are all VERY good points! I'll have to give this some thought.
The “dignity” of the Jewish people requires that we stand for something, even when so standing is unpopular. Popularity and dignity are not the same things.
Agreed! This is precisely what I was thinking as part of the answer. There is an aspect of dignity which does in some way reflects the norms of society. But there's another aspect which is purely internal, relating to one's basic integrity and ideals. And yes, absolutely sometimes the dignified thing to do is "davka" (specifically) to take an unpopular stand and incur the ridicule of others.
How to know when the ridicule of others is a sign that you're doing something wrong, or in fact a sign of doing something very right - is an extremely tricky business! And certainly Jews have differed on this point, vigorously so, sometimes even violently so, throughout history.
I'm going to have to let this percolate for a while and see what comes out. Thanks for making such an astute and thoughtful point!
AJ