By Gary Konecky
One of the things that fascinate me is the very different approaches people take to the Bible.
For bible literalists and Christian fundamentalists, the plain text is all that there is. There is no need to think, to research, or to ponder. It says what it says. If you point out errors in the translation, if you point out apparent contradictions in the text, it does not matter. Their attitude is unshaken. It says what it says and that is all I need to know. If you point out that the Hebrew Bible is different than the “Old Testament,” they deny this either with selective quotes pulled out of context or in some cases they deny it without having ever picked up a Hebrew bible.
The other thing that fascinates me about bible literalists and fundamentalist Christians is that they typically use an English translation of the Bible. Every Rabbi I know can read and fluently translate the original Hebrew, as well as Aramaic. The thought of reading or using an English translation would never occur to these Rabbis. There is good reason for this. Hebrew is the original language of all or half of the bible, depending on your religion or faith tradition. Hebrew is a very nuanced language when it comes to matters of scripture, while English is not. Therefore, meanings are lost in a translation. Critical Hebrew words do not have English equivalents. Shades of meaning, sometimes entire concepts hinge on a single Hebrew word that does not have anything resembling it in English.
In addition to this, the total approach taken by Christians to scripture is radically different from the Jewish tradition. The Jewish tradition holds that G-d gave the Jewish nation the Oral Torah and the Written Torah at Mount Sinai. For many Christians, they look to the bible as their only source of guidance. For Jews, even though the Written Torah is the word of G-d, they look to other sources for to know and understand the word of G-d one must turn to the Oral Torah or oral tradition. The written word is only a starting point.
For example, there is the law requiring “Whenever a census of the warriors was taken, every adult Israelite was to pay a Half-Shekel.” - http://www.begedivri.com/shekel/teachings/Hertz.htm This seems a simple declarative statement, yet there is an entire volume of Talmud that discusses this. If the text were to be taken literally, if the text were to not have deeper implications, then there would be no need for a volume of Talmud on the subject.
The Jews have wonderful bible stories. There is the terrific story taught in Hebrew school about what Abraham’s father did for a living. Read the Hebrew Bible, search for it, read the “Old Testament”. Do you see any mention of what Abraham’s father did for a living? If you cannot find it, don’t worry, as it is not there. It is part of the oral tradition.
Then there is the fantastic story about the sex organs of the original Adam. Is there any mention of this in the Hebrew Bible or “Old Testament?” No, it is not there, it is part of the oral tradition.
One of the most quoted passages from the Hebrew Bible “is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus chapter 21, Leviticus chapter 24 and Deuteronomy chapter 19). It is also one of the most misunderstood. To know its meaning, one must again look toward the Oral Torah.
Are the 10 commandments are the same for everyone? No! There is the Jewish version, the Catholic version, and the Protestant version. In fact, there are differences in things as simple and straightforward as the mere numbers assigned to the commandments.
Then there is the difference in translation involving the commandment: “Thou shall not murder” that is often mistranslated as “Thou shall not kill.” In fact, the Torah lays down very specific laws for when it is appropriate to kill.
I have a book that is over 500 pages long and that only covers the weekly Torah portion involving the 10 commandments. This book devotes hundreds of pages to discussing and explaining the 10 commandments. If the meaning was self-evident and that was all there is to know, then why was a 500 page plus book written?
The bible literalists claim that the bible flat out bans homosexuality, yet nowhere in the bible does it say: “Thou shall not be a homosexual.”
The other funny thing is that many of those who claim the bible condemns homosexuality think nothing of going out for a family dinner at Red Lobster, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus chapter 11).
Leviticus 19:19 says: “You shall observe My statutes: You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species. You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds, and a garment which has a mixture of shaatnez shall not come upon you." - http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9920
Do you know from reading this verse what shaatnez is?
Why is it that I do not see the Roman Catholics, the Christian fundamentalists, the Mormons, the Orthodox Jews and the bible literalists marching on Congress demanding an end to shaatnez? Why is there no outcry from these people demanding that the US Department of Agriculture regulate the mixing of seeds in a field? Why is no one lobbying Congress to close down Red Lobster? Why is no one is demanding the shutting down of the lobster industry in Maine? Why did the Roman Catholic Church spend $550,000 to repeal same sex marriage in Maine, yet never say a word about shellfish?
As Rev. Mel White has pointed out:
"Over the centuries people who misunderstood or misinterpreted the Bible have done terrible things. The Bible has been misused to defend bloody crusades and tragic inquisitions; to support slavery, apartheid, and segregation; to persecute Jews and other non-Christian people of faith; to support Hitler's Third Reich and the Holocaust; to oppose medical science; to condemn interracial marriage; to execute women as witches; and to support the Ku Klux Klan. Shakespeare said it this way: 'Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.'
Even when we believe the Scriptures are 'infallible' or 'without error,' it's terribly dangerous to think that our understanding of every biblical text is also without error. We are human. We are fallible. And we can misunderstand and misinterpret these ancient words -- with tragic results." - http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
Showing posts with label Religious intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious intolerance. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Bible: The Word of G-d?
By Gary Konecky
There are those who believe the bible is the word of G-d. There is no doubt in my mind that the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) is the word of G-d. That said, I believe Joshua may have written the account of Moses’ death at the end of Deuteronomy.
The problem is that many of those who say the bible is the word of G-d, then cite a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of the bible as authority for their beliefs and prejudices. They then act on those beliefs and prejudices to impose their will upon others. There are several scriptural problems with this approach, in addition to the lack of respect for those of differing faith traditions.
The first scriptural problem is that G-d no longer sends us prophets. No one today can speak for G-d, as no one today is a prophet.
Second, I have yet to see an accurate translation of the Hebrew Bible into English. The reason for this is very simple. It is impossible to translate Hebrew into English accurately. Hebrew is a very nuanced language in regard to scriptural matters. For example, there are different names for G-d used in the Hebrew Bible. These different names all indicate different attributes of G-d. If we are to properly understand the Almighty and his intent, it would be useful to know what attribute the original Hebrew text is mentioning; just as it is useful to understand the difference between a drizzle and a thunderstorm if one has to go out in the rain.
Another example involves the Hebrew word “et” (also transliterated as “es” or “eth”). Et appears many times in the Hebrew Bible. Et is a word that has no meaning. Yet every time et appears, it alludes to something important, something important yet unspoken. Et is so important it is discussed in the Talmud (Kiddushin 57a). The Talmud is second only to the Bible in the Jewish tradition. This important word, this word so full of meaning that it appears numerous times in the bible as well as being discussed in the Talmud, is not translated into English. How can one know the will of G-d when not all the words of G-d are present?
Third, is the issue of mistranslation. An example of this can be found in the English name for one of the books of the bible, Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy comes from ancient Greek via Latin, with the Greek being a mistranslation of the original Hebrew (note 1). Deuteronomy “literally means 'second law' coming from the Greek words nomos (law) and deutero (second).” (note 2) The problem is not only is this word mistranslated, but its meaning is incorrect as Moses did not merely retell the law in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, Moses also discussed commandments that are given only in Deuteronomy (and that are not given in any of the other books of the Hebrew Bible). If you are giving additional commandments, then you are not merely retelling the law, which is what the name Deuteronomy means.
The Hebrew name for Deuteronomy is “Devarim” meaning “events” and “which can also be translated as ‘words.’” (note 3) It is interesting to note that the Hebrew name provides a very accurate insight into the content of this book of the bible, as this book consists of Moses’ final address to the Jewish people (words); with the address consisting of Moses; explaining the law, recounting the wondering in the desert (events), and providing final instructions for the Jewish people as they enter the Land of Israel upon his passing.
Fourth, there are three different versions of the Ten Commandments. There is the Jewish version, the Protestant version, and the Catholic version. Surely, if the English translation of the bible that is being used were an accurate translation of the word of G-d there would be only one version. It is also worth noting that there are subtle differences in the text of the Hebrew Bible, as the two sets of tablets were slightly different. This raises the question; what is G-d telling us with these two slightly different versions?
Lastly, the Hebrew Bible is filled with instances that cry out for explanation. For example in the account of creation; day and night is created on the first day, yet the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. We also have the example of chapter one of Genesis telling us that G-d created man and woman. Yet chapter two of Genesis seemingly contradicts this when the account of the creation of woman is given, thereby implying that woman was not created as stated in chapter one. Another example would be the unusual word choice in Genesis 1:26 which states: “And G-d said: ‘Let us make man.’” Who is the us? Did G-d create man or was it a group undertaking? If creating man was a group undertaking, who are the other members of the group? If G-d created man, why is us used? These few examples are all from the biblical account of creation. In addition to these examples, there are numerous other examples like this throughout the Hebrew Bible.
In conclusion, I believe that part of the Bible is the word of G-d. I also believe only an arrogant fool would think that he or she has the knowledge and the wisdom of the Almighty, and can therefore state with absolute certainty G-d’s intent based upon a literalist reading of a text filled with ambiguity, mistranslations, missing words, and seeming contradictions.
Note 1: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Deuteronomy&gwp=13
Note 2: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_Bible_word_Deuteronomy
Note 3: Page 319 of The Torah Anthology / Me’Am Lo’Ez, Book Two, The Patriarchs by Rabbi Yaakov Culi, translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Publishing Corp., copyright 1989
There are those who believe the bible is the word of G-d. There is no doubt in my mind that the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) is the word of G-d. That said, I believe Joshua may have written the account of Moses’ death at the end of Deuteronomy.
The problem is that many of those who say the bible is the word of G-d, then cite a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of the bible as authority for their beliefs and prejudices. They then act on those beliefs and prejudices to impose their will upon others. There are several scriptural problems with this approach, in addition to the lack of respect for those of differing faith traditions.
The first scriptural problem is that G-d no longer sends us prophets. No one today can speak for G-d, as no one today is a prophet.
Second, I have yet to see an accurate translation of the Hebrew Bible into English. The reason for this is very simple. It is impossible to translate Hebrew into English accurately. Hebrew is a very nuanced language in regard to scriptural matters. For example, there are different names for G-d used in the Hebrew Bible. These different names all indicate different attributes of G-d. If we are to properly understand the Almighty and his intent, it would be useful to know what attribute the original Hebrew text is mentioning; just as it is useful to understand the difference between a drizzle and a thunderstorm if one has to go out in the rain.
Another example involves the Hebrew word “et” (also transliterated as “es” or “eth”). Et appears many times in the Hebrew Bible. Et is a word that has no meaning. Yet every time et appears, it alludes to something important, something important yet unspoken. Et is so important it is discussed in the Talmud (Kiddushin 57a). The Talmud is second only to the Bible in the Jewish tradition. This important word, this word so full of meaning that it appears numerous times in the bible as well as being discussed in the Talmud, is not translated into English. How can one know the will of G-d when not all the words of G-d are present?
Third, is the issue of mistranslation. An example of this can be found in the English name for one of the books of the bible, Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy comes from ancient Greek via Latin, with the Greek being a mistranslation of the original Hebrew (note 1). Deuteronomy “literally means 'second law' coming from the Greek words nomos (law) and deutero (second).” (note 2) The problem is not only is this word mistranslated, but its meaning is incorrect as Moses did not merely retell the law in Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, Moses also discussed commandments that are given only in Deuteronomy (and that are not given in any of the other books of the Hebrew Bible). If you are giving additional commandments, then you are not merely retelling the law, which is what the name Deuteronomy means.
The Hebrew name for Deuteronomy is “Devarim” meaning “events” and “which can also be translated as ‘words.’” (note 3) It is interesting to note that the Hebrew name provides a very accurate insight into the content of this book of the bible, as this book consists of Moses’ final address to the Jewish people (words); with the address consisting of Moses; explaining the law, recounting the wondering in the desert (events), and providing final instructions for the Jewish people as they enter the Land of Israel upon his passing.
Fourth, there are three different versions of the Ten Commandments. There is the Jewish version, the Protestant version, and the Catholic version. Surely, if the English translation of the bible that is being used were an accurate translation of the word of G-d there would be only one version. It is also worth noting that there are subtle differences in the text of the Hebrew Bible, as the two sets of tablets were slightly different. This raises the question; what is G-d telling us with these two slightly different versions?
Lastly, the Hebrew Bible is filled with instances that cry out for explanation. For example in the account of creation; day and night is created on the first day, yet the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. We also have the example of chapter one of Genesis telling us that G-d created man and woman. Yet chapter two of Genesis seemingly contradicts this when the account of the creation of woman is given, thereby implying that woman was not created as stated in chapter one. Another example would be the unusual word choice in Genesis 1:26 which states: “And G-d said: ‘Let us make man.’” Who is the us? Did G-d create man or was it a group undertaking? If creating man was a group undertaking, who are the other members of the group? If G-d created man, why is us used? These few examples are all from the biblical account of creation. In addition to these examples, there are numerous other examples like this throughout the Hebrew Bible.
In conclusion, I believe that part of the Bible is the word of G-d. I also believe only an arrogant fool would think that he or she has the knowledge and the wisdom of the Almighty, and can therefore state with absolute certainty G-d’s intent based upon a literalist reading of a text filled with ambiguity, mistranslations, missing words, and seeming contradictions.
Note 1: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Deuteronomy&gwp=13
Note 2: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_meaning_of_the_Bible_word_Deuteronomy
Note 3: Page 319 of The Torah Anthology / Me’Am Lo’Ez, Book Two, The Patriarchs by Rabbi Yaakov Culi, translated by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Moznaim Publishing Corp., copyright 1989
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Talking Nonsense
By Gary Konecky
"Not everything that is thought should be said. And not everything that is said should be repeated. And not everything that is repeated should be remembered." - Rabbi Israel Salanter
We recently had extensive coverage of Tiger Woods and his extramarital affairs. What good was done by all this talk? Do we really need to know his intimate affairs? Does whom he slept with or details of his marriage affect our lives? Would we have been better off if something useful was discussed instead?
Several months ago Bernie Madoff was in the news and we again had extensive media coverage of details involving him and his family. Yet the larger issue of how the government has repeatedly failed to protect the American public from financial fraud after financial fraud (Enron, TYCO, MCI WorldCom, Adelphia Communications, HealthSouth, Washington Mutual, AIG, Countrywide, et. al.) was not reported nor discussed. Wouldn’t reporting about the government turning a blind eye to financial fraud been more useful?
Recently, in comments on one of my blogs, I was attacked by so called religious people. I was called a sinner. I had bible verses thrown at me. Did this do anyone any good? What is fueling their hate and anger and what gives them the right to lash out at others? How does any of this benefit society? Whatever happened to: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." - Hillel (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)?
Nor is the problem of inappropriate speech a new problem. In chapter 22 of Samuel I, we learn the Doeg the Edomite told Saul about Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. Ahimelech was the priest who was unaware of Saul’s hatred of David and who innocently aided David. Doeg’s tale baring resulted not only in the death of Ahimelech, but it also resulted in Nob, the city of the priests, being smote with the sharp edge of the sword, both man and woman, infant and suckling, and ox and ass, and lamb. The lesson for us is that people sometimes die when we say things we should not say. Least anyone think I am exaggerating, let us remember not so many years ago when those so-called religious people opposed any funding of AIDS research saying; “AIDS was G-d’s wrath.”
We also have some interesting teachings from the Talmud. In Sukkah 49b we are taught that performing charity and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than offering sacrifices. In Shekalim 15a, we learn: "Everyone was gossiping about Zecharyah, the son-in-law of R’ Levi, saying that he does not need to take charity, but he nevertheless takes. When he died, they investigated, and found that he was distributing it all to others, who were needy, but were too embarrassed to take themselves."
How much harm does our needless talk cause? How many times do we open our mouths because we are absolutely convinced we know something, only to find out that we knew nothing, as in the case of those who gossiped about Zecharyah?
In Pirkei Avot 1:17, we are taught: “Shimon his son said: All my days have I grown up among the wise and I have not found anything better for a man than silence.” http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics/Talmud/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin_Damages_/Pirkei_Avot/Chapter_One.shtml
How much of our talk serves no useful purpose? How many times would our silence be wiser than our speech? Perhaps we should think before we open our mouths. Perhaps we should weigh our words with care. Perhaps we should speak only when we have something, something truly useful, to say.
"Not everything that is thought should be said. And not everything that is said should be repeated. And not everything that is repeated should be remembered." - Rabbi Israel Salanter
We recently had extensive coverage of Tiger Woods and his extramarital affairs. What good was done by all this talk? Do we really need to know his intimate affairs? Does whom he slept with or details of his marriage affect our lives? Would we have been better off if something useful was discussed instead?
Several months ago Bernie Madoff was in the news and we again had extensive media coverage of details involving him and his family. Yet the larger issue of how the government has repeatedly failed to protect the American public from financial fraud after financial fraud (Enron, TYCO, MCI WorldCom, Adelphia Communications, HealthSouth, Washington Mutual, AIG, Countrywide, et. al.) was not reported nor discussed. Wouldn’t reporting about the government turning a blind eye to financial fraud been more useful?
Recently, in comments on one of my blogs, I was attacked by so called religious people. I was called a sinner. I had bible verses thrown at me. Did this do anyone any good? What is fueling their hate and anger and what gives them the right to lash out at others? How does any of this benefit society? Whatever happened to: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." - Hillel (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)?
Nor is the problem of inappropriate speech a new problem. In chapter 22 of Samuel I, we learn the Doeg the Edomite told Saul about Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. Ahimelech was the priest who was unaware of Saul’s hatred of David and who innocently aided David. Doeg’s tale baring resulted not only in the death of Ahimelech, but it also resulted in Nob, the city of the priests, being smote with the sharp edge of the sword, both man and woman, infant and suckling, and ox and ass, and lamb. The lesson for us is that people sometimes die when we say things we should not say. Least anyone think I am exaggerating, let us remember not so many years ago when those so-called religious people opposed any funding of AIDS research saying; “AIDS was G-d’s wrath.”
We also have some interesting teachings from the Talmud. In Sukkah 49b we are taught that performing charity and justice is more acceptable to the L-rd than offering sacrifices. In Shekalim 15a, we learn: "Everyone was gossiping about Zecharyah, the son-in-law of R’ Levi, saying that he does not need to take charity, but he nevertheless takes. When he died, they investigated, and found that he was distributing it all to others, who were needy, but were too embarrassed to take themselves."
How much harm does our needless talk cause? How many times do we open our mouths because we are absolutely convinced we know something, only to find out that we knew nothing, as in the case of those who gossiped about Zecharyah?
In Pirkei Avot 1:17, we are taught: “Shimon his son said: All my days have I grown up among the wise and I have not found anything better for a man than silence.” http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics/Talmud/Mishnah/Seder_Nezikin_Damages_/Pirkei_Avot/Chapter_One.shtml
How much of our talk serves no useful purpose? How many times would our silence be wiser than our speech? Perhaps we should think before we open our mouths. Perhaps we should weigh our words with care. Perhaps we should speak only when we have something, something truly useful, to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
