On reading the Torah literally

[cnorman19]

Some insist that the Hebrew Bible (which Christians call "The Old Testament"), and particularly that most central and ancient part of it called the Torah, the five Books of Moses which contain the foundation of all the rest -- is self-evidently intended to be read literally, as a message given directly by God to humans which is not to be questioned or "interpreted" in any way. But even the most cursory examination of the text reveals that that approach is quite literally impossible, even if one accepts the Divine origin of the Torah; the Bible itself does not allow it -- and as it happens, that approach has never been taken by anyone other than Christians of relatively modern times. Indeed, those who wrote or edited the final version of the Torah themselves never intended it to be so used.

The reason for that fact, and the proof of it, is simple and clear: There was never only a written Torah. There were always two; a written Torah and an oral Torah, each dependent upon and coexisting with the other.

(The following is from The Jewish Virtual Library, one of the few really reliable sources online for information on Jewish history and teachings. Some emphases have been added in boldface)

ORAL LAW (Heb. תּוֹרָה ש�ֶבְּעַל־פֶּה), the authoritative interpretation of the Written Law (*Torah, which is the text of the *Pentateuch) which was regarded as given to Moses on Sinai, and therefore coexistent with the Written Law. This view of the Oral Law was a fundamental principle of the rabbis. The Written and Oral Laws constitute together "two that are one." "It is related that a certain man stood before Shammai and said 'Rabbi, How many Torahs have you?' The rabbi replied 'Two – one written and one oral'" (ARN1 15, 61; cf. Sif. Deut. 351). There is a strong and close bond between the Written Law and the Oral Law, and neither can exist without the other – both from the dogmatic point of view and from that of historical reality. The Oral Law depends upon the Written Law, but at the same time, say the rabbis, it is clear that there can be no real existence for the Written Law without the Oral. The need for the positing of the existence of the Oral Law is inherent in the very character and nature of the Torah. The statutes of the Written Law could not have been fulfilled literally even in the generation in which they were given, since "that which is plain in the Torah is obscure, all the more that which is obscure" (Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3, 35; cf. Moses of Coucy in Semag, introduction: "For the verses contradict and refute each other," and "the statements in the Written Law are vague"). Even those statutes of the Torah that appear to be clearly formulated and detailed contain more that is obscure and requires explanation than what is manifest and understandable. The reasons given for this are many and various. The Written Law contains contradictions (cf., e.g., Deut. 16:3–4 with 16:8), and there is a lack of clarity and definition: The law "he shall surely be put to death" (Ex. 21:12 et al.) does not state whether by stoning, burning, or some other method not mentioned in the Torah. "And ye shall afflict your souls" (Lev. 16:31) does not indicate whether it means by mortification of the body through ascetic practices, by fasting, or in some other manner. The prohibition against doing work on the Sabbath does not specify the nature of work (see below). "And if men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit depart and yet no harm follow… But if any harm follow…" (Ex. 21:22–23) does not make it clear whether the "harm" refers to the woman or her embryo. Dimensions and quantities are not given, e.g., in the precepts of leket, *shikhḥah, and *pe'ah, or *terumah (the priestly portion), etc. Individual laws are given without any indication of whether the law is confined to that particular case or whether it is to be regarded merely as an example of a category of laws, e.g., the law that a slave goes free if his master destroys his eye or his tooth (Ex. 21:26–27).

There are lacunae, and laws which are not explicitly stated but to which mere passing reference is made (thus the only reference to the laws of sale and acquisition is the prohibition against overreaching – *ona'ah); there is no reference to the laws of marriage, while the law of divorce is mentioned only incidentally in connection with the injunction that a man may not remarry his divorced wife after she has remarried and become divorced again (Deut. 24:1–4); the Torah enjoins that one sentenced to be flogged may not have more than the fixed number of lashes inflicted (Deut. 25:1–3), but nowhere does it specify which transgressions involve the punishment of a flogging. From the above it seems clear that it was impossible for life to be regulated solely in accordance with the Written Law ("and I should like someone to adjudicate between two litigants on the basis of the weekly portions, Mishpatim [Ex. 21–24] and Ki Teẓe [Deut. 21:10–25:19]" – Judah Halevi, Kuzari, 3:35). It may even be inferred from the Written Law itself that immediately after it was given there already was difficulty in understanding it. Thus, e.g., it is apparent that until he heard it explicity from God, Moses did not know what the penalty was for the transgression of gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32–35; cf. Sif. Zut. 15:34: "Eliezar b. Simeon says: Moses did not know that he was liable to death, nor did he know how he should be executed, as can be inferred from the reply given: 'And the Lord said unto Moses: the man shall be put to death,' i.e., he is liable to death; how shall he put to death? He [God] replied: by stoning"; cf. also the case of the blasphemer in Lev. 24:10–23). As stated above, there is no definition in the Pentateuch of what constitutes work in connection with the Sabbath (or the Day of Atonement), only some of the things forbidden being explicitly mentioned (plowing, reaping, kindling fire). Furthermore, in connection with the desecration of the Sabbath, in one and the same verse (Ex. 31:14) two different punishments – death and *karet – are given. From the point of view of its judicial literary form, the Written Law is in fact no different from other early Oriental statutes which never exhausted or aimed at exhausting all the details of the laws given.

If, therefore, the statutes of the Torah could not be properly understood in the generation in which it was given, how much less could it be understood by later generations? In addition to this consideration, it was a fundamental doctrine of the rabbis that the Torah was given by God for all time, that it would never be exchanged for another Torah and certainly never rescinded, and that it provided for all possible circumstances which might arise at any time in the future. Nevertheless, in practice, changing conditions – social, economic, etc. – raised many new problems, as well as the question of their solution in accordance with the Torah. The new situations and spheres of human activity which arose, for which the Written Law did not provide, could not be ignored. In fact, from the beginning the Written Law was the basis of authority of the Oral Law for the future (Deut. 17:8–11 and see below). It can thus be regarded as a historical fact that the Oral Law existed not merely from the moment the Written Law was given (and in this sense it is correct to say that the Written and Oral Laws were given together to Moses at Sinai), but it may even be maintained that the Oral Law anticipated the Written Law, as the Written Law not only assumes the observance of the Oral Law in the future but is in effect based on its previous existence. Since the written law relies – by allusion or by its silence – on statutes, customs, and basic laws not explicitly mentioned in it (marriage, divorce, business; see above), these statutes are ipso facto converted into a part of the Oral Law.

The impossibility of the Written Law existing without an Oral Law can also be demonstrated from Jewish history. The development of the Oral Law can be traced throughout the books of the Bible, especially in the prophets and the hagiographa, in the Jewish literature of the time of the Second Temple (Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, in Jewish Hellenistic *literature, and in the early Targums of the Bible), the talmudic literature and the rabbinical literature throughout the generations (see *Halakhah). Even the dissenting sects outside normative Judaism, as long as they did not abandon Judaism completely, did not maintain the Written Law without an Oral Law: the *Sadducees possessed a "Book of Decrees – who were to be stoned, who burnt, who beheaded, and who strangled" (the scholium to Megillat *Ta'anit); the Judean desert sect developed, especially by means of biblical exegesis, a most ramified halakhah which has survived in its works (in particular in the Damascus Covenant, the Manual of Discipline and other works; see Dead Sea *Scrolls); and a most ramified halakhah also developed among the *Karaites. In the relationship of the Written to the Oral Law there exists a kind of paradox, both interesting and characteristic. From the dogmatic point of view the Oral Law has its basis in, and derives its validity from, explicit verses in the Written Law, but at the same time the Written Law itself obtains its full validity and its authority for practical halakhah from the Oral Law. The Written Law in fact establishes the authority of the Oral Law by laying down that "if there arise a matter too hard for thee, thou shalt turn unto the judge that shall be in those days," and "according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee from that place… According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee shalt thou do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left" (Deut. 17:8–11). Yet it follows precisely from those very verses themselves that it is the Oral Law itself which determines what the halakhah of the Written Law is in practice, including the true meanings (as distinct from the theoretical philological meanings) of those very verses (Deut. 17:8–11) themselves.

Furthermore the Oral Law lays down explicitly that from the moment of the giving of the Written Law – "from Heaven," at Sinai, but in the language of men and to men – it is handed over absolutely to the judgment of the human intelligence of the scholars of the Oral Law, who accept the "yoke of the kingdom of Heaven" but give halakhic ruling according to their understanding ("henceforth no prophet can innovate anything" – Sifra, Be-Ḥukkotai, 13:7; cf. Shab. 104a), since "it is not in Heaven" (TJ, MK 3:1, 81d; BM 59b – based upon Deut. 30:12). Though indeed this rule was not accepted without protest, yet those who objected belonged to the fringes of Judaism, and it was not they who determined the halakhah. The Oral Law is able to circumvent the Written Law (see TJ, Kid. 1:2, 59d). In consequence of this provision, Maimonides, following the talmudic sages, ruled that "in an emergency any bet din may cancel even the words of the (written) Torah… in order to strengthen religion and to prevent people from transgressing the Torah. They may order flagellation and punish for breach of law, but such a ruling may not be effected permanently. Similarly, if they see a temporary need to set aside a positive precept, or to transgress an injunction in order to bring many back to religion, or in order to save many Israelites from grief in other matters, they may act in accordance with the needs of the time; just as the physician amputates a hand or a leg in order to preserve the life, so the bet din may rule at some particular time that some precept of the Torah may be transgressed temporarily in order that it may be preserved" (Yad, Mamrim 2:4). Then the sages rightly maintained that the Oral Law is the major and the main part (i.e., both in quantity and quality) of the Torah. "The Holy One made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of that transmitted orally" (Git. 60b; cf. TJ, Pe'ah 2:6, 17a: those given orally are beloved"). The Oral Law, which is well-nigh sovereign in relation to the Written Law, is the "mystery" (μνστή�ιον) of the Holy One (Tanḥ. Ki Tissa 34, et al.; though the sources speak of the *Mishnah, it is certain that the whole oral law is intended) because of the essential nature of its being given orally. It is this nature of the Oral Law – that it was given orally – that determines its vitality and organic development; it is not immutable and fossilized but alive and evolving. This vitality, however, could only be preserved in words not fixed in writing and in a binding and unchangeable form but in words developing continually and unceasingly. As mentioned, the Sadducees had a book of decrees in writing which was their "Oral Law" (the scholium to Meg. Ta'an.), and therefore according to their outlook the whole of the Torah too was "prepared in writing" (Kid. 66a – according to early printed versions and Haggadot ha-Talmud, Constantinople, 1511, 56d), i.e., the written word obligates. The Pharisees, however, claimed that the distinguishing feature and authority of the Oral Law is embedded in the fundamental rule (Deut. 31:19), "put it in their mouths" (the scholium to Meg. Ta'an.). The Oral Law was handed over to the sages, by means of whose words it is fixed and evolves from generation to generation. It is this nature and this sovereignty that are the real will of the Written Law, which was given on the basis that it be explained by means of the Oral Law. This, apparently, is the reason that although there is a disciple who expounds "more than was spoken to Moses at Sinai" (ARN2 13, 32), yet "even what a distinguished disciple will rule in the presence of his teacher was already conveyed to Moses at Sinai" (TJ, Pe'ah 2:6, 17a; cf. Meg. 19b and SEZ 2:171 "Surely both the Bible and Mishnah were communicated by the Almighty"). The meaning of all these and of similar sources is that from the point of view of its functional essence, the whole of the Oral Law was given to Moses at Sinai, since "the Torah itself gave the sages a mind to interpret and to declare" (Sif. Num. 134; cf. "matters not revealed to Moses were revealed to Akiva" – (Tanḥ. B. Num. 117; for its true meaning cf. Men. 29b – the aggadah of Moses entering the yeshivah of *Akiva – "and he did not know what they were saying," not even a detail of a halakhah given to Moses at Sinai). Even the Holy One repeats, as it were, a halakhah as spoken by the sages (PdRK, ed. by D. Mandelbaum (1962), 73, et al.).

There is much more at the site concerning the attitudes and approaches of the other two major movements in Judaism, Reform and Conservative; but the above is an excellent explanation of the Orthodox approach, which should put an end to discussions about the "literal" or "verbatim" reading of the Torah, unassisted by any "interpretation." Such a thing is clearly rendered impossible by the nature of the text itself; and indeed, Jewish tradition and teaching -- from the time of the giving of the Torah, never mind the later editing and redaction of the text into its final form -- has never, as in not ever, held that such a reading is even possible.

[Divine Insight]

But even the most cursory examination of the text reveals that that approach is quite literally impossible, even if one accepts the Divine origin of the Torah; the Bible itself does not allow it

I agree with the above observation 100%.

This is precisely why I reject the entire Hebrew mythology as nothing more than cultural myths, rumors, and superstitions.

For me, it's extremely easy. The bible must be either the verbatim word of God, or it could not have come from any God. Especially not a God who demands that we must abide by his "LAW" or his rules, or even his "morality".

Why is this the case?

Well, it should be obviously I would think.

If there exists a God who is going to pass moral judgments on us in any way, then we need to know that the moral standards of that God are. Otherwise how are we suppose to pass HIS moral judgement?

My position is simply this:

If each individual person needs to push their own personal subjective morality onto the "Holy Book" that supposedly contains this God's moral laws and requirements of us, then how can that even begin to make any sense?

If we need to "interpret it" based on what we personally feel to be moral then that flies in the very face of a God who has laid down moral standards or laws that we must follow, or even satisfy in any way.

Moreover, if we need to subjectively interpret the Bible based on our own personal sense of morality, then from whence are we obtaining our morality? Certainly not from the Bible since we would be pushing our own morality onto the Bible via our own personal subjective interpretations.

Therefore, as far as I can see, the only rational conclusion that makes any sense at all is that the book was never inspired by any judgmental God who demands that we must follow HIS LAWS and HIS sense of morality.

~~~~~~

I hold this same position with Christian Fundamentalists. I actually AGREE with them that the Bible must necessarily be the inerrant verbatim literal word of God, or otherwise it's meaningless and cannot be the directives of any God.

It truly is an ON/OFF type of deal.

It's all or nothing. Either these are the moral laws, directives, and moral standards of our creator, or they aren't. And if they aren't then trying to cling to them under the claim that we need to push our own subjective morality onto them by ignoring what they literally say and pretending that they actually reflect our own personal sense of morality via some twisted abstract contortions is, quite frankly, utter nonsense.

So if the Jews don't take the Bible to be the literal word of God (which is apparently what they do indeed claim), then as far as I'm concerned they have quite literally rejected what the Bible has to say.

We can then conclude that the Jews literally don't believe in their own Bible.

That sounds like a pun, but as far as I'm concerned it's the absolute truth.

I don't question that modern Jews do this. I also don't question that the ancient Jews could not have followed all these utterly absurd commandments and directives perfectly literally either. I agree it's impossible.

And therefore, my conclusion is that these ancient myths clearly didn't come from any supreme being. They are clearly nothing more than superstitious writings, possibly even used for political agendas, etc.

They never came from any God. Especially not a judgmental God who is going to hold us to all these absurd directives literally.

As far as I'm concerned that's obvious.

What the modern Jews might believe doesn't help these ancient myths one iota.

And as far as I'm concerned that's the only point that needs to be made.

[cnorman19]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

Okay; but it seems to me that, once again, you are very carefully missing the point. For one thing, it seems to have escaped you that this article is NOT about the beliefs of modern Jews, but about the beliefs and approaches of the ancient Hebrews at the time that the Torah was written.

Whatever. I asked you to avoid engaging me again, and you have anyway.

This post was directed at those who do, or can, see its point -- that the Fundamentalist approach of pretending to read the Bible literally and without interpretation of any kind was never possible, not even to the people who may have (and in some cases, still do) regarded it as a direct message from God. The obvious implication of regarding human intelligence as the final determinant of the meaning of Scripture -- and note, as the article makes clear, that that meaning was NEVER arbitrarily determined nor separated entirely from the text --would be that Scripture is not something to be lightly dismissed and discarded, all the more for those who regard it as a product of the human mind in the first place, not to mention those who see no particular need to wax dogmatic about its origins either way. It's an important step in the development of human morals and laws, whatever its origin, and the fact that those who first consulted and studied it felt that it was their responsibility to shape its meaning and application makes it that much more important in that regard.

But if one has determined a priori that it's no more than worthless superstition and cannot possibly be understood or even considered in any other way, no facts of history or textual analysis will make a difference in that judgment. Be well, no hard feelings, and try to remember that your adamantine pronouncements are not binding upon others.

And don't expect any further replies to your wholly predictable dismissals of others' scholarship, approaches and traditions.

[Divine Insight]

Whatever. I asked you to avoid engaging me again, and you have anyway.

This is a public forum. Are you attempting to discriminate against me on a personal level.

I'm not replying to you personally I'm responding to the PUBLIC POST you made on a PUBLIC FORUM.

I have a right to post my views just like anyone else.

This post was directed at those who do, or can, see its point --

Are you saying that you are only interested in seeing posts that agree with you?

That seems rather strange.

that the Fundamentalist approach of pretending to read the Bible literally and without interpretation of any kind was never possible, not even to the people who may have (and in some cases, still do) regarded it as a direct message from God. The obvious implication of regarding human intelligence as the final determinant of the meaning of Scripture -- and note, as the article makes clear, that that meaning was NEVER arbitrarily determined nor separated entirely from the text --would be that Scripture is not something to be lightly dismissed and discarded, all the more for those who regard it as a product of the human mind in the first place, not to mention those who see no particular need to wax dogmatic about its origins either way.

My position is that it was either inspired by a supernatural "God" or it wasn't. It seems to me that this is a valid issue to deal with.

It's an important step in the development of human morals and laws, whatever its origin, and the fact that those who first consulted and studied it felt that it was their responsibility to shape its meaning and application makes it that much more important in that regard.

I disagree that it was an important step in the development of human morals. On the contrary, I personally feel that many of the things taught in this collection of stories actually taught humanity to have a pretty poor sense of morality.

But if one has determined a priori that it's no more than worthless superstition and cannot possibly be understood or even considered in any other way, no facts of history or textual analysis will make a difference in that judgment. Be well, no hard feelings, and try to remember that your adamantine pronouncements are not binding upon others.

I have not determined anything a priori.

All of my assessments and conclusions are based upon years of having studied these religious scriptures. These are my conclusions not any a priori guesses.

And don't expect any further replies to your wholly predictable dismissals of others' scholarship, approaches and traditions.

I don't require that you reply to any of my posts.

But if you do, you can expect that I will respond to those comments on this PUBLIC FORUM.

Just for the record Charles. I don't post for you. I post to address the topics and subjects that are being discussed. Other people read these forums too and they may be interested in hearing my views. Have you ever thought of that?

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I have read this post, and -- other than noting clumsy attempts at stuffing words in my mouth re suggestions of discrimination, etc., and attempts to claim some sort of expertise where only admittedly uneducated opinion has been exhibited -- I see no particular need to respond. Have a nice evening.

[Divine Insight]

attempts to claim some sort of expertise where only admittedly uneducated opinion has been exhibited

I don't know what "expertise" you are referring to. I don't claim to be anything more than a human living on planet earth. I've read, studied, and was even indoctrinated into this ancient Hebrew religion. My opinions are based only on my own personal knowledge and experiences with these religions and their written scriptures.

I post my views for others to consider. It's entirely up to them whether they see any merit in what I have to say.

I don't claim to be any sort of "authority". I'm not making an appeal to "authority".

Are you?

I might also add that it's quite ironic that if I actually accept your "Jewish position" on these scriptures, then my own personal conclusions concerning how I "interpret" them is clearly as valid as any Jew's interpretation.

And therefore if I "interpret" them to be nothing more than the obvious ramblings of a superstitious culture that used an imaginary God concept to support their immoral bigotries, prejudices, and immoral behaviors, then according to the Jews that's a valid "interpretation".

So in that sense you could say that I've taken Judaism to its ultimate conclusion.

I'm the "Ultimate Jew" according to what you've been suggesting.

My interpretation is as valid as anyone's.

This is the problem when you go down that path.

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

Again, no need to respond -- any more than there is any need to respond to a Creationist who claims to understand evolutionary science, but has never come within a mile of actually reading anything on the subject. Nothing further required here.

[WinePusher]

This is a public forum. Are you attempting to discriminate against me on a personal level.

I'm not replying to you personally I'm responding to the PUBLIC POST you made on a PUBLIC FORUM.

I have a right to post my views just like anyone else.

Yes you do, and please keep doing so.

Are you saying that you are only interested in seeing posts that agree with you?

That seems rather strange.

Indeed. I find it strange that one would choose to disengage with another thoughtful debater, even if they don't agree on the issue at hand. The point of this forum is to debate, not to preach.

Just for the record Charles. I don't post for you. I post to address the topics and subjects that are being discussed. Other people read these forums too and they may be interested in hearing my views. Have you ever thought of that?

While I'm not interested in this religion at all (other than how it relates to Old Testament studies), I find it refreshing to see a different point of Judaism being presented.

[cnorman19]

Are you saying that you are only interested in seeing posts that agree with you?

That seems rather strange.

Indeed. I find it strange that one would choose to disengage with another thoughtful debater, even if they don't agree on the issue at hand. The point of this forum is to debate, not to preach.

I choose -- or at least attempt to choose -- to disengage from "debaters" who only pretend to debate; i.e., who consistently refuse to either acknowledge or respond to arguments and criticisms, and who repeat their same old mantras without attempting to back them up with anything other than unsupported opinion. THAT strikes me as "preaching."

In this case, among other things, there has never been a logical defense presented of the false dichotomy of "Either the "Uninterpretable Word of God, or Worthless Trash" -- thus the comparison to Creationism, where the false dichotomy is often "Man is either descended from monkeys or is a special direct creation of God." Both forks of that fake dichotomy, as in the one above it, betray a proud, willful ignorance of the actual fields of study involved and a crude dismissal of their value. Further, it has been put forward here more than once that "responsible interpretation of the Bible" consists of "any arbitrary or dismissive interpretation at all" and that such a travesty falls within the realm of traditional and acceptable Jewish teachings. That is obvious nonsense, and clearly unworthy of a response from anyone who takes these issues seriously.

The idea that I only wish to engage members "who agree with me" is a blatant falsehood. I prefer to engage members who are actually open to ideas other than their own and who take them seriously, as opposed to merely dismissing them out of hand without any cogent argument other than their own unsupported and undefended opinions. Mere repetition does not constitute either defense or debate.

[Divine Insight]

I choose -- or at least attempt to choose -- to disengage from "debaters" who only pretend to debate; i.e., who consistently refuse to either acknowledge or respond to arguments and criticisms, and who repeat their same old mantras without attempting to back them up with anything other than unsupported opinion. THAT strikes me as "preaching."

Debating is a two-way street Charles.

I've addressed your issues head-on. But you have totally avoided addressing the issues I bring up.

If you can't trust the Bible to be literally true and you need to make up alternative "non-literal interpretations" then who exactly is doing the "pretending"?

You haven't addressed my points at all.

If the Bible can't be taken literally, and I need to PUSH my subjective morality onto the Bible via non-literal interpretations, then from whence does my sense of morality arise?

Also, what's the point in having a God who demands that we must obey his commandments and directives if we're going to ignore them and instead make up our own non-literal moral ideals?

I think these are very direct and important questions and issues. And I haven't seen any decent rebuttal to them. In fact, I haven't even seen them addressed at all. They have been completely ignored.

Instead of addressing the serious points that I bring up you do nothing but proclaim that I'm only "pretending" to debate. That seems like an absolute cop-out to me.

You tell me why we should believe in a God who demands that we must obey him whilst you simultaneously proclaim that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally and that we need to subjectively interpret it based on our own personal views, ideals, and morality.

If there's a God who had given us commandments and directives that we must follow, then what sense does it make to suggest that we need to do our own personal subjective modification of these commandments and directives by ignoring them literally and pretending they could be twisted into meaning something entirely different?

I think that this is a more than FAIR concern.

How you can pass that off as "pretentious debate" is beyond me.

It sounds more to me like you recognize that my observations and objections cannot be refuted, so rather than own up to that, you make-pretend that my concerns aren't even valid objections at all.

I totally disagree with that. Obviously.