[Vision2020] In Defense of Phil Nisbet

[Andreas Schou]

Donovan --

Faith cannot be studied objectively (though, of course, you can ask what 
people believe), but texts -- all texts -- most certainly can. The Talmud, 
the core of Jewish theology, is itself the first systematic study of Hebrew 
scripture. However, it takes a rather different approach to its study than 
modern researchers.

Researchers with no interest in applying the Law have no interest in 
producing a comprehensive "theory of G-d." The G-d expressed in scripture 
can be nonsensical or nonexistent; it doesn't particularly matter to them, 
because they aren't starting from the presuppositions that the God of the 
Tanakh is good or just. In terms R. Hillel would understand, they're looking 
for 'p'shat': the plain meaning of the text. Karaiite theology is as deadly 
boring and illogical as it is unjust. So is Calvinism. Ralph is a 
researcher, not a Jew. He doesn't have any stake of producing a Biblical 
cosmology that makes a whit of sense, because he doesn't intend to apply it 
to the real world.

Theoretically, I believe Ralph's correct: this is what most of the Tanakh -- 
and I don't believe its authors consistently believed the same thing -- 
says. Except for Elijah and Enoch.

When you are producing a theory of G-d -- which is not expressed in the 
Tanakh, which lacks a figure like Paul, a theologian posing as a prophet -- 
you have to consider other factors, like 'what makes sense', 'what works', 
and 'what general ethical laws from outside the text can be brought into 
play'. Did modern Jews, or even the authors of the Talmud, believe that it 
was just to sell your daughter into slavery? For many of them, of course 
not. To keep stupid, legalistic interpretations from coming into play, you 
must bring logic to the text; you must start from the presupposition that 
the Law is just, G-d is consistent, and G-d is good. To do this, later 
Jewish authors brought remez (condensing a principle from several 
statements), d'rash (assuming that God is intending to make sense), and sud 
(creating a mystical interpretation for texts that seem to be incosistent 
with the Law.) These produce a much richer, much more logical theology.

If G-d existds, and G-d is just, then this interpretation is true and Phil 
is correct.

It all depends on the assuptions you start from and the interpretive tools 
you're willing to use.

-- ACS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050830/2deae42a/attachment.htm