This Just Disgusts Me
The Florida Sun-Sentinel reported on Friday:
New edition of Encyclopaedia Judaica casts doubt on existence of MosesNo figure in Jewish annals compares with Moses.
He "changed the course of human history all by himself," Rabbi Norman J. Cohen writes enthusiastically in Moses and the Journey to Leadership, one of those inspirational books built around biblical personalities.
"He is the founder of the nation, a revolutionary, a lawgiver, a priest, a judge, a politician, a teacher, a prophet, a comforter and a guide -- all rolled up into one. He is the paradigm for all subsequent leaders, for all of us."
But a Cohen colleague at Reform Judaism's New York City seminary, Rabbi S. David Sperling, isn't certain that Moses even existed or, if he did, whether the Bible provides much reliable information about him.
Oh and "Rabbi" Sperling is quite serious:
Sperling contends that if traditional accounts of the origins of Judaism had not recorded a founder, "analogy would have required postulating him; and that is probably what happened" when ancients wrote the Bible.The introduction to Moses' life (from another writer) says "we cannot really reconstruct a biography of Moses. We cannot even be sure that Moses was a historical character."
...Sperling, however, writes that the biblical story of Moses' birth "contains generic elements that are discounted by historians" and echo pagan legends. He deems passages on early adulthood "historically unverifiable" and says the exodus account was "dramatically woven out of various strands of tradition."
And there you have it. This "rabbi" categorically believes (while he does not "flatly rule out" the possibility of Moses' having existed) that the Prophet of G-d, the Divine Messenger who brought Torah to the nation of Israel, is potentially no more than a mishmosh of ancient legends, the equivalent of a papier-mache made of the pages of an ancient Sumerian National Enquirer.
Obviously I find, as a Torah-believing Orthodox Jew, "Rabbi" Sperling's assertion to be appalling. However, his personal views would not concern me -- if he were not a contributor to the Encyclopedia Judaica.
Now, he speaks for Jews. Now, he is writing down the definition of my faith in a reference text for the world to see, for all of humanity's posterity to retrieve on digital media ad infinitum potentially. And this is what some scholar is going to see. And maybe he will sit to write, "Judaism may have been started by the Biblical figure Moses, though this is disputed" in a paper, and that paper will be given an A by a professor, and this will be taken as fact by a student of theology some day.
It disgusts me that if I object to sitting down at a table with "Rabbi" Sperling, I am derided as being wrong and backward. If "Rabbi" Sperling does a conversion, anyone who fails to recognize it is blasted internationally in the media, and potentially slung through the mud. If I declare "Rabbi" Sperling as anything less than a co-religionist, with an equally valid viewpoint, something is seen as remiss in me, my viewpoint is stuck in a bygone era and must be flexible to encompass "all views of truth."
I find "G-d-Optional Judaism" hard to stomach as a denomination of the religion which introduced monotheism to much of mainstream humanity.
This has no bearing on my love for, and unity with, my fellow Jews -- but "Jew" transcends religion (as we see that even the most prolific idolater never ceases to be a "Jew") and ethnicity and nationality. "My fellow Jew" may be the Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel, or an Asian woman taking communion at Mass in the Vatican (Rahmana litzlan) -- I feel no less love nor is there any weakening of the familial link.
But I find it truly difficult to call the Moses-optional "Rabbi" Sperling a teacher of Judaism.
Can I draw the line at doing so? Am I allowed to? Is anyone allowed to?
Comments
the Prophet of G-d, the Divine Messenger who brought Torah to the nation of Israel, is potentially no more than a mishmosh of ancient legends - As explained on this unmentionable Bizayon, the person whom the Encyclopedia Brittanica refers to as "Moses" probably did exist.
Our perception of him is through a Mishmosh of ancient Israelitic legends, written over a long period of factionalized Israelitic religious worship. There were the Baal/El and Yahweh cults, the Mushite priesthood and the Aaronid priesthood (led by the Zadokite clan), the Davidic kingdom of Judah and the various dynasties of the kingdom of Israel; the texts have been written and redacted countless times, but have always been reflective of a very real individual named Moshe. The existence of a Mushite priestly/levitical caste proves that a Moshe (or two - if you ask Freud) existed in the very same manner that the existence of a MacDonald clan proves that a Donald once existed.
Posted by: Sholomanarchy | January 22, 2007 08:47 PM
Heh. I have no deep comment on this issue for you, but just thought it would be cute to let you know that Professor Sperling was going to be my Thesis Advisor when I was still at HUC. Now that I'm at Bat Ayin, I reckon I won't have to write a thesis to get Smicha-- but gorsh, I guess I'll have to start believing in the whole "Moses" thing.
Stop by the wanderingstu when you get a chance, And be sure to swing by Bat Ayin for Shabbes when ba'aretz
Posted by: Shimshi-Wu | January 24, 2007 12:30 PM
Am I missing something???
One of the 13 principles which one must acknowledge as truths in order to be considered a Jew, and to partake in the World to Come is missing in this Rabbi's absurd assumption:
Principle VII. The prophetic capacity of Moses our Teacher, peace be upon him
And this is that we accept that he was the father of all prophets that were before him and that will be after him. He was on a qualitatively different level than any other, and he is chosen from all other people before and after him of any that have any knowledge of God; for his was the greatest. And he, peace be upon him, rose to the levels of the angels. He was granted all areas of knowledge and prophecy and his physical attributes did not diminish. His knowledge was different and it is through this difference that it is ascribed to him that he spoke to God without any intermediary or angel.(To read the original Hebrew, see the end of Talmud Sanhedrin, Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishna.)
http://www.mesora.org/13principles.html
This kind of pen-knife removal of a rudimentary principle in Judaism is, in my opinion, dangerous and inexcusable.
Posted by: Dean Edward | January 25, 2007 12:56 AM
This is completely inexcusable for a person who calls themself a rabbi. Moses is real, he came to my bedroom last night and told me so. This wacko sperling must not have been there. I think that we as "jews" must go out and defend the faith. Lets join with haggard, Zarqawi, and the other "defenders of faith." GET OUT THERE AND FIGHT FOR MOSES.
Posted by: Benjamin Lewis | January 27, 2007 03:59 PM
Benjamin Lewis misses the point. A person is of course free to teach that Moses didn't exist, but he should not call what he's teaching "Judaism." It reminds me of Orwell's novel Animal Farm, where the principles of Animalism slowly get corrupted around to the opposite of what they originally stated, while still being called "Animalism." Judaism is a monotheistic religion that believes a fellow called by a certain four-letter-name gave another fellow named Moses a document called the Torah to give to a bunch of whiny ex-slaves who were to give it to their kids.
Whether Moses is real or not isn't Y-Love's point. His point is that someone should not claim to be teaching Judaism if their teaching includes that Moses isn't real.
Even the poster Sholomanarchy, who seems to buy into little or no of the account given in the Torah of its history, admits that there had to be a Moses, from simple linguistic-historical inference.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 28, 2007 07:20 PM