From: clmn@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Valid Interpretation Flamefest Resumes
Reply-To: clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Live & Direct from Downtown Petah Tikva ISRAEL
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:08:07 GMT

This article was originally posted on September 25th.  I am reposting
it by request.

Stan Krieger writes:
 
>As we leave Tisha B'Av behind until next year, and approach the High
>Holidays, can we PLEASE accept the fact that we share the same enemies,
>and it is against them whom we should direct our resources?
>The only reason we have O-C-R flame wars (actually O vs C-R, even though
>Judaism, as taught by C, is much closer to O than to R) is that, primarily,
>the O act as though theirs are the only sects that are teaching and
>observing Judaism as God intended.   The C and R have no reason to accept
>this assumption.
 
Let me suggest that there's plenty of blame on all sides for the flame wars.
No one person and no one set of "movement" adherents is responsible.  Lots
of people have tangled over this stuff and I doubt that finger-pointing is
going to accomplish what Stan intends.
 
>As a corollary, the O will claim that C and R are the ones who "changed"
>the religion (all it means is that O and C say one thing and R says another,
>or O says one thing and C and R say another), although it has been
>pointed out, time and time again, that even what O does is different,
>or not even addressed, in the Torah.
 
No, the issue isn't who changed the religion.  The fundamental problem is
deeper than that.  Let me abandon the use of the terms O,C,R and refer
instead to Milton Steinberg's distinction between "traditionalists" and
"modernists."  According to Steinberg, the central area of dispute is over
the nature of the revelation at Sinai and its product.  The traditionalists
believe that the divine revelation was captured in the oral and written
torah.  The modernists have varying views of the revelation but agree
that the oral and written torah are the work of men.  What does this imply?
If the torah is the work of men, then it is open to individual interpretation
and judgement by other men; in other words, the truth of the torah is
relative truth.  If, on the other hand, the origin is divine, then the torah
represents absolute truth.  Obviously, any human being who contradicts
divinely given absolute truth is in error.
 
And this is what causes our flame wars.  There is an asymmetry at work.
The "modernists" (R&C), convinced that the torah is of human origin, must
have tolerance of differing opinions built into their belief structure.
And so they do.  All they ask for is reciprocity and what could be more
reasonable than that?  "We respect your interpretation of Judaism," they
say, "Why won't you respect ours?"  Alas, this isn't possible to do if
you're convinced the torah represents divinely given absolute truth.  The
"traditionalists" are prevented by their core belief from granting the
equal treatment which the "modernists" are happy to give but which they
expect in return.
 
>And as much as it hurts, the ONLY way we are going to solve our internal
>problems, and not have the same civil war among ourselves that the
>Pharisees and Saducees had in 67-70 (which hastened, if not outright
>led to, the destruction of the Temple), is for all of to recognize that
>the other sects do represent ("gasp") legitimate, valid, interpretations of
>what God wants from us Jews (and for those of you who mock my use of
>the  word "legitimate", such an attitude is part of the overall problem),
>and work out any divisive issues within that framework.
 
Not only is this NOT the only way, it is a total dead end.  So far as I can
tell, not a single person on the worldwide Internet has ever admitted to
changing his or her view of what's legitimate, even in the face of the
endless resurfacing of this "Valid Interpretation" theory.  Folks, if the
truth is absolute and given by G-d, then the contradiction of the truth
cannot be a valid interpretation, it must be untruth.
 
This is harsh but it's built into the basic axiom system of Orthodoxy.
Railing against it is pointless.  The Reform MUST admit that Orthodoxy is
a valid interpretation, for their own axiom system, based on individual
autonomy, REQUIRES them to do so.  But the Orthodox CANNOT admit the reverse
without rejecting Orthodoxy itself.  This is what makes people so angry.
 
I say the ONLY way to solve our internal problems is to recognize that our
differences of belief are IRRECONCILABLE.  There is simply no basis for
agreement, EVER.  Once we recognize this, then we can stop trying to force
agreement down each others' throats and act civilly.  IT IS UNCIVIL BEHAVIOR
WHICH PREVENTS PEACE.  Again, there is plenty of blame on both sides.
Rather than name names of flamethrowers here on s.c.j, let me say that,
as an example, the Jewish Observer is notorious for flaming R&C in very
disrespectful language; likewise, the UAHC publication Reform Judaism flames
O and has even used insulting cartoons to drive home the point.
 
Respect for individuals as fellow Jews and people of good faith is ALWAYS
possible, even if we think their interpretation of Judaism is invalid.  I
think this is an attainable goal and one for which we should strive.
 
>Just as a discussion point, what would happen if we find a sect of Hebrews
>who observe Judaism exactly as written in the Torah; specifically, they
>have an alter for animal sacrifices, they observe the Sabbatical and
>Jubilee years, etc., etc., etc?  Would we accept them?
 
Well, none of us accept the Karaites as Jews so why should we accept this?
 

-- 
Bill Coleman
clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish