Subversive Bible Study
As NYU Professor David Elcott puts it in a recent article published by Tikkun Magazine:
"The Bible, along with the sacred texts of other religious communities, has proven to be troublesome. We have been convinced that the Bible is the answer, that it is the word of God — in whatever fashion we believe that — and that it clarifies all of the moral ambiguities we must face."
Yet there is another Jewish tradition of teaching the Tanach. A tradition that …
"…recognizes moral ambiguity and the Bible as a deep struggle to wrestle not only with confused human beings but also with confusing and conflicting voices of God."
With permission from Tikkun Magazine, I invite you to read the full article, at no cost to you. Simply click:
www.MoralBible.com/SubversiveBibleStudy/P
Why?
Because this remarkable article is also a review of the audio coursebook on The Moral Meaning of The Bible with Reuven Kimelman I was privileged to edit and publish.
Whether or not you decide to enjoy The Moral Meaning of the Bible audio coursebook, David Elcott's article is by itself an insightful look into the practice of Torah (or Bible) study.
I would love to hear your thoughts about the article. And so do Professors Elcott and Kimelman. To share, please enter a comment below. Thank you!
Filed under Articles by 
Comments on Subversive Bible Study
Reuven Kimelman's book/audio course sounds intriguing. I've recently listened to an audio presentation of both Karen Armstrong's The Case for God and James Kugel's How to Read the Bible. Those, coupled with Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' The Dignity of Difference make a very nice matrix into which Kimelman's material should fit.
Judging from what Elcott reports, I agree with his observation that the title should have been The Moral Meanings (plural) of the Bible. But I am troubled by his mention that Kimelman uses the masculine pronoun to refer to God. It would seem to me that the people who would be most likely to engage with such studies as these are the very people who would feel put-off by the old gendered language. It makes me wonder what else lurks in the material.
Elcott's review was well written and makes me curious about the course. I am hopeful that I will be able to access more information on your site.
Thank you. An approach long overdue. Excellent review. I am not Jewish, but that doesn't matter. I have just purchased from JPS "Guide The Jewish Bible" and "Subversive Sequels in the Bible." I may purchase Dr. Kimelman's course.
Professor Kimelman’s treatment of the text is literary. That is to say, it is neither ideological nor is it theological. As a “character” in a moral drama, we needed to use some pronoun for God. For the better or for the worse, both Hebrew and English are “gendered languages,” as a matter of grammatical structure, so short of using the very awkward “he or she,” one is forced to use some grammatically correct pronoun. We made the decision to use the one that reflects the correct translation of the Hebrew, and is consistent throughout.
Dear Sergiu:
I am currently teaching a Religions of the Book (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) course at a Jesuit University. Elcott articulates very clearly what we are discussing in class, especially concerning moral ambiguity in sacred texts. Some students leave a bit perplexed . . . expecting clear answers instead of more questions, questions the texts themselves are presenting.
I would love for my students to read this article. Do I need permission for reproducing this for classroom use and discussion?
Thanks,
Prof. Matthew G. Whitlock
Ascribing to the Biblical instruction that the Holy Spirit teaches us all things and that the Word is God-breathed and profitable, I would encourage any project that not only delivers a method to feed, but to be fed. I would be happy to review the entire product in the future.
The course does sounds intriguing. I agree that the Bible has ambiguities, but there is an absolute truth underlying it, as the very statement "There is no absolute truth" is self-refuting. I believe the Bible's ambiguity is intentional because it forces the sort of self-reflection that causes change to occur not only externally in our behavior, but internally in our hearts. I don't know how common are the traditions of which reviewer speaks when he says, "For traditional Jews and some Catholic traditions, the answers come as laws, canonical decisions. In other Christian traditions, what is right and wrong is extracted from the traditions we have inherited and presented as fundamental and singular reads. Such Bible teaching is not taking us to good places these days." This is not, in my view, common among Christians, nor should it be. Any honest perspective on ourselves, our traditions, and interpretations of the bible must by necessity come from honest reflection and desire to do God's will. Anything less leads to a creeping legalism and self righteousness which is spiritually damaging. I suspect that the reviewer has constructed an image of the faithful that has no bearing to reality so he can simply and easily knock it down.
I am not in agreement with the statement, 'A responsible pluralism is not a luxury of those who say "I'm OK, you're OK." It is the crucial foundation of human beings working together to heal a damaged world.' There are absolute truths and some divine texts come much closer to that truth than others. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, "I would be surprised to learn that all other faiths other than Christianity are completely wrong." Instead, Lewis paints a picture of gradual divine revelation as what was once out of focus and blurry becomes clearer as God works his plan for the redemption of man. Truth is not relative and when one religious text conflicts with another then one is wrong and the other right, or perhaps both are wrong. They cannot both reflect truth on some matter, yet be contradictory.
On the subject of the, so called, leaders of the Bible–they were men and women and because they were men and women they were sinful and flawed. Can anyone honestly argue that Jacob wasn't a bit of a stinker? David was God-centered, yet he sinned. Moses doubted and suffered pride. While celebrating their examples we should realize they are flawed, otherwise we put them into a category apart from normal men; we intentionally abdicate our responsibility when we tell ourselves their example is completely out of reach and reject the possibility that, with God's help, we too can do as well or better. The reviewer says, "faith expands to take in the dark sides of saints and the holiness of sinners. As I said, this is not the Sunday school Bible that has been the limit of most Americans' encounters with Scripture." To this I would counter that it appears that the reviewer has not been to many Sunday schools, as the refrain that "We are both Saints and Sinners" is so common that I cannot believe he even wrote this seriously and would be even more amazed if he actually believed it. I will be charitable and assume that he just knows not of what he speaks.
Again, the reviewer says, "we need Bible teaching that is erudite, competing with the most illustrious scholars of Jewish and Christian traditions. We need Bible teaching that is pluralist at its core and that transcends the common, challenging us to find a deeper sacredness in our lives." That is an interesting thought, but how does one bridge the gap between Jewish and Christian hermeneutics, much less the widely divergent interpretations one might see from Islamic scholars who reject the Bible as corrupted, or worse yet atheists who view it, at best, a set of well meaning tales of fiction? I also see a deep temptation to exegesis. To be sure, there is much that practicing Jews and Christians can agree on, but there will be differences. However, in the words of Paul in his letter to Timothy: "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful." I think this is the best we can hope for and we certainly could, and have, done a lot worse.
Dear Matthew,
The article is owned by Tikkun Magazine. Our Learning Company cannot grant you or anyone else permission for its reproduction. I suggest you contact Tikkun's Managing Editor, Dave Belden, at managingeditor@tikkun.org.
Thank you.
The gendered language problem for designating Gd by pronoun in English is worse than stated here.
IF we start using SHE we run fairly into the charge that the men are blaming women (again) for the problems of the world. Creation. Whatever. All-ever. As usual. (cf. Adam in Eden).
IF we try for a composite, granting the female pronoun first letters, the male 2nd, and the imperson IT the last of the composite, we wind up vulgar. Since everyone knows IT does happen.
I rather agree with the entry labeled November 12, 2009
Anonymous @ 8:50 pm. To the degree that pluralism means anything to me re: the Bible, it means that each faith group inherits/creates/considers itself to possess a specific set of jobs the Lord assigns to it, and for Christians and Jews of all sorts of varieties the Bible is the 'text' (tho what constitutes that text precisely has been and probably will be a matter of dispute) where the primary terms of the assignment are represented.
Primary because nearly all religions possess a wealth of secondary ones –Talmudic, commentary, patristic etc– which sometimes function as qualifications or at least interpretations considered to be qualified by the group's experiences over time, post biblical. (Islam which in practice seems to consider the Koran all the Bible it needs, also possesses and is qualified by such post Koranic revelations and interpretations. Buddhism has more such texts than one could read in a lifetime–to paraphrase a much more learned man than I.)
So the fact that new heuristics produce new interpretations and 'readings' is not for me a matter of pluralism; it's not a matter of political equality; or religious truth as such. It's more a matter of proper human attempts to understand the job(s) they inherited via their faith groups, genetic complements, and particular geographies and economics. I'm therefore usually interested in the variety of 'takes' on the religious experience that come to my attention, but usually not as a matter of competing truths about the one Gd.
I believe that unless we are willing to be unshackled by the moral absolutes of religion, politics, race, economics, sexism, and other institutions, we will continue to breed the seeds of our own destruction.
Moral absolutes must give way to moral tension, as we struggle our way to spiritual wholeness. Much humility is required. Arrogance characterizes the positions of rigidity that we like to hold on to. As we learn to walk in love, we learn to walk in humility — both toward our fellow man and toward our own sense of not knowing.
Looks interesting.
On this topic I would also suggest taking a look at my recent essay,"Subversion as Return: Dissent, Renewal, and the Future of Judaism,: in *Subverting Scriptures: Critical Reflections on the Use of the Bible,* Beth Benedix ed (New York: Palgrave, 2009), pp. 217-236.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Subverting-Scriptures/Beth-Hawkins-Benedix/e/9780230610699
There are wonderful comments here, reflecting a variety of religious traditions, which is quite amazing. Shaul Magid is a great scholar and his writing will be rewarding. Yes, you can use the article for teaching — just cite Tikkun Magazine.
I suppose the larger question addressed by a number of commentators is the nature of pluralist conversation and transcending hermeneutic traditions. In my own writing and theology, I have focused on limited narratives (as opposed to universalist narratives). Let me tell my story and give it meaning without claiming that it is the only story. And I can listen to the story of others without feeling threatened or diminished. If narratives, however, turn absolutist and violent, genocidal, then they have crossed a boundary and no longer can offer a usable, shared truth. In essence, if my understanding of God's truth is that I am commanded to annihilate in God's name, don't give up on God, give up on truth.