El, YHVH and Asherah

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

"israel" is the english translation of the word "YiSRaEL" (lowercase are vowels), which means "struggles with G!D" - the name given to jacob after his wrestling match. it has nothing to do with "is", let alone ra.

Check the Hebrew. Yis (ie Yod-Sin, יש) is a statement of existence. Ra... Well, I'm not sure on that one. El (Alef-Lamed, אל) is the word for "god".

Regarding it being Jacob's name... I don't know if Jacob/Israel ever really existed. Indeed, there's a lot of genetic evidence that he probably didn't, at least not in the way described in B'reshit. The existence of Aaron and Moses has been verified, but Israel and his sons are a bit less clear.

[flowperson]

BB:

Thanks for your clarifications. I appreciate them all because I'm basically a "learning-by-doing" sort of person.

Yeah, I agree with your perceptions of oneness when it comes to G-d and how that concept is represented. When one goes back far enough in analyzing ancient folk beliefs, a-la The Golden Bough and other such works of comparative anthropology, an image of an androgynous supreme being emerges which exhibits both male and female attributes. But I'm also sure that all of the "heing and sheing" among the ancient Caananites and Hebrews had alot to do with the traditions of the region also.

flow....

[Prober]

Thanks, B. Well said.

[bananabrain]

karimarie -

fair enough, of course that is what "yesh" means, but you can't split that word into three bits, because a resh by itself is not a prefix, so you wouldn't parse it like that. however yod-shin-resh means "straight" or "direct" or "correct" - so, perhaps "straight to G!D" or "correct to G!D". but you wouldn't split it into "yesh" and then "rael" because there's no such word as resh-alef-lamed, nor is there a root for that. leastways, not in my jastrow.

Regarding it being Jacob's name... I don't know if Jacob/Israel ever really existed. Indeed, there's a lot of genetic evidence that he probably didn't, at least not in the way described in B'reshit. The existence of Aaron and Moses has been verified, but Israel and his sons are a bit less clear.

ok, but i'm talking Torah and language, here, not genetics. and who says that the existence of aaron and moses has been verified? i've never heard this. and, even so, what's it got to do with this discussion? jacob's cognomen is given to him in the Torah for reasons internal to the Text that are perfectly logical in that context. that's pretty much all i need to know. i don't require the external validation of science and archaeology for my beliefs to work as an integrated system.

flow - with all due respect to frazer and campbell and the like, comparative mythology as a deconstructive exercise is an ultimately fruitless exercise in terms of deriving meaning, although helpful i am sure to psychologists and those who want to think of themselves as being "in the know". you might as well say that "all human heroes have arms, legs and a head". this will almost always be a truism but it doesn't really teach you anything. i read "hero with a thousand faces" recently and found it deeply patronising, not to mention lacking deep insight of the traditions it so glibly synthesises. haven't read "golden bough" yet, but it's next on my bookshelf after i'm done with gibbon and josephus. and, judging from the size of those, i'll be a while.

anyone who wants to understand this issue of the "hebrew goddess" is advised to read the book of the same name by the eminent scholar raphael patai.

but - and it's a big but -

when you're done, read my first post on this thread again. and be aware that the interpretations put on much of the information in the book are not the only interpretations that work, particularly if you happen to know anything about the jewish mystical tradition.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

karimarie -

fair enough, of course that is what "yesh" means, but you can't split that word into three bits, because a resh by itself is not a prefix, so you wouldn't parse it like that. however yod-shin-resh means "straight" or "direct" or "correct" - so, perhaps "straight to G!D" or "correct to G!D". but you wouldn't split it into "yesh" and then "rael" because there's no such word as resh-alef-lamed, nor is there a root for that. leastways, not in my jastrow.

I'm not really making the argument that his etymology idea is correct, just acknowledging that it strangely also applies, even in Hebrew.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ok, but i'm talking Torah and language, here, not genetics.

Genetics aren't a dangerous thing...

Originally Posted by bananabrain

and who says that the existence of aaron and moses has been verified?

The fact that the most recent common ancestor of all kohanim was a man who lived in about 1000 BCE is pretty convincing evidence to me that a person existed who fathered all Jewish priests. Whether or not his name was 'Aaron' or not is up for debate and really not particularly important. What it says is that there is some legitimacy to the story of Sh'mot.

Search for information on the search for "Y-Chromosomal Aaron". It's actually quite interesting a development.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i've never heard this. and, even so, what's it got to do with this discussion? jacob's cognomen is given to him in the Torah for reasons internal to the Text that are perfectly logical in that context. that's pretty much all i need to know. i don't require the external validation of science and archaeology for my beliefs to work as an integrated system.

No, you don't *need* the external validation of science and archaelogy, but to reject scientific and archaeological findings that occur isn't helpful either as it turns your religion into a form of escapism where you do not wish to understand the truth of what transpired. It shuts down desire to learn and understand rather than encouraging it.

Study is a positive way to live one's life. Rejection thereof is not helpful.

I should remind also that Rambam was of the opinion that Torah must be interpreted in light of scientific findings and that if a scientific finding contradicts an interpretation of Torah, that interpretation is wrong and a new interpretation must be developed. You need not accept this philosophy, but it's the one I'm most inclined to agree with myself.

[bananabrain]

What it says is that there is some legitimacy to the story of Sh'mot.

there was always legitimacy to the story. having scientific evidence to that effect is all very well, but it does not therefore follow that if there isn't scientific evidence, or the scientific evidence appears to contradict the traditional understanding of the Torah, that the Torah is therefore wrong and not "legitimate". i don't need the Text legitimated that way, because then it's not a belief in Torah, it's a belief in science. and i don't need to believe in science because it doesn't require my belief - it stands or falls on its own evidential methodology and that is all fine. but this evidential methodology is not appropriate for matters of metaphysics!

No, you don't *need* the external validation of science and archaelogy, but to reject scientific and archaeological findings that occur isn't helpful either as it turns your religion into a form of escapism where you do not wish to understand the truth of what transpired. It shuts down desire to learn and understand rather than encouraging it.

nonsense. i don't reject the findings, but i do reject the idea that i have to change my beliefs because of them. science will never be able to bring itself to accept the idea of Divine Revelation, so for that reason the axiomatic bases are incompatible. of course, as you correctly pointed out, there have been a lot of people in jewish history, including the great aristotelian rationalists of the middle ages like rambam, that relied strongly on their rationality.

Rambam was of the opinion that Torah must be interpreted in light of scientific findings and that if a scientific finding contradicts an interpretation of Torah, that interpretation is wrong and a new interpretation must be developed.

but you have to take the whole of rambam, not just the stuff you like. he was, for example, of the medical opinion that too much sex gives you bad breath. now, i strongly believe that he would have modified this opinion with new evidence and the same goes for any of his rationally-based decisions. HOWEVER, that is not the only game in town. rambam also goes to bat strongly for revelation, prophecy and the Messiah and you can't tell me that his views on these (if you're familiar with them or his prophetic method as outlined in the 'guide') are contingent on scientific findings. rambam sees the development of a robust philosophical and rational capability as being a sine qua non for the development of prophetic ability, but although they are certainly seen as necessary, they are not seen as the endpoint of human development, but a halfway house.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Karimarie]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

there was always legitimacy to the story. having scientific evidence to that effect is all very well, but it does not therefore follow that if there isn't scientific evidence, or the scientific evidence appears to contradict the traditional understanding of the Torah, that the Torah is therefore wrong and not "legitimate".

One does not scientific evidence to confirm a belief, though beliefs that do not incorporate understanding thereof are based on tired and meaningless fallacies people use to provide themselves comfort. It may make you believe in God, but it does not make you a better person.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i don't need the Text legitimated that way, because then it's not a belief in Torah, it's a belief in science. and i don't need to believe in science because it doesn't require my belief - it stands or falls on its own evidential methodology and that is all fine. but this evidential methodology is not appropriate for matters of metaphysics!

One does not apply science to religion, that doesn't make any logical or rational sense. However, if the Torah were to make the claim at some point that, for example, that all insects are orange, that statement would be scientifically and rationally *incorrect*. It's not a matter of applying science to religion, it's a matter of applying Occam's razor to a set of ideas in order to devise the most rational and sensical version of the story.

Unless there is something principally wrong with logic and reason, your position is really not tenable in this context.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

science will never be able to bring itself to accept the idea of Divine Revelation, so for that reason the axiomatic bases are incompatible.

Science exists in a vacuum, that is, experiments are conducted under controlled conditions. The reason this is done is because it doesn't matter if God is involved in the process or not--We observe phenomena that we do not understand and attempt to replicate and interpret it.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but you have to take the whole of rambam, not just the stuff you like.

Actually, no, that is not true. There is no statement anywhere in any Jewish text that claims you have to pick one Pharisaic or Rabbinic philosopher and worship them like a God and agree with everything they say on every issue. It would be ridiculous to suppose that one has to agree with everything another person says whether they are originally willing to do so or not. Do all Reconstructionist Jews accept every aspect of R. Kaplan's theology? Absolutely not! Do all Conservative Jews agree with everything R. Hirsch taught? Not at all.

And certainly in Orthodoxy not everyone agrees with the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem. (Had an argument about this on another forum.)

Originally Posted by bananabrain

rambam also goes to bat strongly for revelation, prophecy and the Messiah and you can't tell me that his views on these (if you're familiar with them or his prophetic method as outlined in the 'guide') are contingent on scientific findings.

Well, there aren't any 'scientific findings' on any of the subjects mentioned, so obviously they're not contingent on said findings. Subjects like prophecy, revelation, heck, even God, are outside of the scope of science. They're things that can be observed but that developing an experiment for is impossible.

How do you test if what a prophet who speaks of the future says is true? Well, the Jewish way has been to wait until something happens and see if the prophecy actually happened. For all we know, Yisaiah, Yeremiah, Yonah, et al. could have been making it all up. That's how prophecy is, though. We can't validate one way or another what is true until something happens to confirm it or disprove it.

What is a prophet? A person who tells the future. What is a false prophet? A person who tells a false version of the future that does not come to pass. Believing in a prophet's words prior to their occurance or lack thereof is a matter of faith.

Prophecy, therefore, gives rise to something different--It gives rise to belief, and through belief, faith. Faith is not a dangerous concept, indeed, it is a very positive concept. However, failing to attempt to understand natural phenomena that we can observe and test is nothing but presumptuous in the face of our God.

We have brains for a reason, we live for a reason.

[bananabrain]

beliefs that do not incorporate understanding thereof are based on tired and meaningless fallacies people use to provide themselves comfort.

oh, i agree. but it does not necessarily follow that in a dispute between science and religion, science automatically wins. for example, science can't possibly countenance the idea of Divine Revelation (or even inspiration) or indeed the idea of the supernatural, let alone the Metanatural. i call this the "angels don't show up on radar" argument, a famous example of which was the announcement by yuri gagarin on the first trip into space that he had proved soviet atheism by going into space and failing to spot G!D. i would characterise the idea that there is nothing beyond science's understanding as a similar tired and meaningless fallacy. it may help you be a better scientist, but it won't make you a better person.

However, if the Torah were to make the claim at some point that, for example, that all insects are orange, that statement would be scientifically and rationally *incorrect*.

well, the Torah doesn't make such claims. the Torah is well known for not giving reasons for things. and, if you're talking about incorrect claims understood in the literal sense (such as the universe being Created in "six days", at least one "day" of which occurred before there was a sun to measure "days" by) then i would suggest that it is the understanding of the Text that is faulty and incorrect rather than the Text itself.

there's nothing wrong with logic or reason except the tiny word "axiom". but it is rather an important word - and the axioms of Torah and logic are different. it's a different system of thought - parallel but not inferior.

We observe phenomena that we do not understand and attempt to replicate and interpret it.

the jewish religion is an attempt to observe a Text that we have and attempt to reconstruct and interpret the system that it drives. the entire Oral Law is an attempt to record the reverse-engineering of the system.

There is no statement anywhere in any Jewish text that claims you have to pick one Pharisaic or Rabbinic philosopher and worship them like a God and agree with everything they say on every issue.

that's not what i'm suggesting. what i am saying is that you can call rambam a rationalist all you like, but you can't ignore the fact that he is also a believer in Revelation and prophecy. and, if he believes in those things, surely you cannot claim that he would be willing to ditch them for the sake of reason? certainly other authorities disagree with his 13 principles, for all sorts of reasons, but i personally think that they are a brilliant identification of the axioms of judaism, that cannot be rationalised or explained or broken down further. in other words, they can only by justified by religious belief, not by any reason or rationalisation. you cannot prove them or find evidence thereof - they can only be believed. or not.

It would be ridiculous to suppose that one has to agree with everything another person says whether they are originally willing to do so or not.

so where does that leave na'aseh ve-nishm'a - "we shall DO and [then] we shall understand"? look, there are certain things that are obligatory whether we understand them or not or whether we are willing or not to do them. of course, this is only a position held within "orthodoxy" (horrid word, should be "orthopraxy").

Do all Reconstructionist Jews accept every aspect of R. Kaplan's theology? Absolutely not! Do all Conservative Jews agree with everything R. Hirsch taught? Not at all.

but that's the point. do all orthodox jews accept the authority of r. joseph karo, author of the shulhan aruch? yes, absolutely. whether he is the final word on an issue, however, is an entirely different matter. i had an argument recently with someone who is a black-hat wearer, when i asked what authority made it compulsory. it turned out to be the "chofetz chayim", who is C19th and ashkenazi. now i can't see how that can possibly be a binding commitment for me - i'm not even ashkenazi. the point is that "orthodoxy" is a somewhat more fluid (not to mention recent) concept than the kiruv organisations and artscroll would have us believe. halakhic authority, however, though similar in many ways, is not, at least to my way of thinking, up for grabs for anyone whow wants it. certainly, if i want to know something and i can't work it out for myself (or am not willing to risk getting it wrong) i ask my rav, or someone who knows their stuff.

How do you test if what a prophet who speaks of the future says is true? Well, the Jewish way has been to wait until something happens and see if the prophecy actually happened.

that's the empirical way. the jewish way is to follow the halakhic procedure codified, at least in part, by rambam.

However, failing to attempt to understand natural phenomena that we can observe and test is nothing but presumptuous in the face of our G!D.

this is also an ancient halakhic principle known as ha'olam noheg keminhago - "the world carries on according to its custom". what that means is that the cosmos has been Designed to work a particular way and to function according to certain natural laws, ie, the laws that scientific endeavour is devoted to discovering, like, say, gravity. the sages say that you should expect these natural laws to go on functioning regardless of your actions. in other words, if you fall off a roof, all the prayer in the world is unlikely to affect the operation of the applicable physical laws. don't expect to be able to observe the flouting of these laws - the world just isn't like that.

b'shalom

bananabrain