Dear Mr. =
Schulman,
Thanks for your answer. You may be =
right:
the whole point might be that Abraham had not yet left =
Ur psychologically, even though he =
was not
there physically when God spoke to him. But I don’t know of any =
ancient
interpreters who say that. In fact, the reason why I asked this =
particular
question is that it troubled all sorts of ancient interpreters, and =
there was
no generally agreed upon answer:
Some people, like Philo of =
Alexandria,
said Abraham was still in Ur when
God spoke to him (in Gen. 12:1-3). Then how do you square this with the =
fact
the previous chapter of Genesis says he had already left =
Ur (Gen.
11:31)? Simple, Philo said. The whole thing was a kind of flashback (he =
doesn’t
use that term, of course, which I think is a creation of =
Hollywood). First the Torah tells you that he left, then
it goes back and gives you all the details of how it =
happened.
This idea – that things in =
the Torah
are not necessarily related in chronological order – is found in a =
lot of
ancient interpreters. Eventually, Jewish interpreters created a phrase =
in
Hebrew to sum up this notion: ein muqdam
um’uhar ba-Torah, “there’s
no earlier or later in the Torah” (a curious turn of phrase in =
Hebrew –
it doesn’t really sound right – that may be based on a Greek
expression). That might help explain why, for example, Gen. 1:27 says =
that God
created human beings, “male and female He created them,” but =
then the
next two chapters (Genesis 2-3) go on to narrate in greater detail how =
the
first two human beings, Adam and Eve, were created. There are a lot of =
other
things in the Torah that also seem to violate chronological order, so =
this was
a useful principle to have.
Other ancient interpreters =
disagreed,
however. They thought that when God spoke to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3, =
Abraham had
already left Ur<=
/st1:place> and was living in Haran. Why then does He say to Abraham “Leave your =
homeland”?
Perhaps He meant homeland (eretz) in the =
broad sense
of all of Mesopotamia (today’s =
Iraq) – “leave this whole area and go to =
Canaan.”
This is apparently what Josephus thought that sentence =
meant.
And then there’s the book of
Jubilees. Its author had a novel solution: Abraham was in =
Haran, but asked God whether he should stay there or go back to =
Ur, since
the people of Ur<=
/st1:place> were now asking him to return. God replied: “Leave =
your
homeland and your kindred” (that is, don’t go back to =
Ur) “and
leave your father’s house” (here in =
Haran), ”and go on to the =
land of =
Canaan.”
What do I think? I think Abraham =
was
already in Haran. After all, Gen. 12:4 says he departed from =
Haran. That doesn’t prove that Philo was wrong, but it =
strongly
suggests it. What’s more, Abraham later uses the same expression, =
“my
homeland and my kindred” (in Gen. 24:4), and it turns out that he =
meant
by this not Ur<=
/st1:place> but the city of Nahor (Gen. 24:10), not far from =
Haran. That pretty much cinches it.
_____________
=
James
Kugel
11 Efrayim =
St.
93621 =
Jerusalem
Israel
Tel. 972 2 =
672-2197
Fax. 972 2 =
673-3027
-----Original =
Message-----
From:
ngfp-bookclub-admin@lists.ngfp.org =
[mailto:ngfp-bookclub-admin@lists.ngfp.org] On Behalf Of Philip Shulman
Sent: Wednesday, March =
30, 2005
1:04 AM
To: =
ngfp-bookclub@lists.ngfp.or=
g
Subject: Re: =
[NGFP-BookClub]
On-line course
A few random thoughts. Thank you, Professor =
Kugel, for
offering this course, a tasty kugel indeed, if you will forgive the =
culinary
metaphor. In true Jewish spirit, I respond first to the last question =
(the last
shall be first). I suggest that Abraham, though in Haran, had not yet =
left Ur psychologically
i.e. you can take the man out of Ur, but you can't take Ur out of =
the
man, at least not easily. When God said "Go forth, to the =
land which
I will show you..." he does not say where Abraham was going, =
so it
seems that the whole emphasis was not on the destination, but on the act =
of leaving
i.e. of transcending the habits, mentality and conditioning of his =
father
and countrymen, rejecting the alienation (idol-worship) of his =
upbringing.
(Erich Fromm equated Marx's concept of alienation with biblical
idol-worship".) I think of Proust's comment: "Le vrai voyage =
de
d=E9couverte ne consiste pas dans la d=E9couverte de nouvelles =
terres
mais de regarder avec des yeux nouveaux".
(The real voyage of discovery consists not in discovering new lands but =
in
seeing with new eyes). The Greeks were on to this too: Plato has =
Socrates raise
the question: Is something good because the gods love it, or do =
the gods
love it because it is good - his answer is that the gods love it because =
it is
good. To me this represents a rejection of arbitrary divine power in =
favour of
humanistic values, another example of overcoming alienation.
As to Abraham's monotheism deriving from astronomy, could there be here =
an
insight like Shakespeare's: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our =
stars,
but in ourselves" (Cassius) i.e. a taking back into ourselves of a =
faulty
projection? Jews are good at introspection, perhaps starting with =
Abraham.
Another quote comes to mind:
"On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour =
les
yeux."
(It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; What is essential =
is
invisible to the eye.) - Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry in "The Little
Prince".
As to ancient interpreters interpreting Josh. 24:2-3 and did they really
believe what they said - I think they believed it and I find it quite
plausible. "Eyes they have and they do not see - ears and they =
do
not hear. Those that make them are like them". =
Enough.
I am enjoying the book. Sorry for the overlong ramblings, but I didn't =
have
time for a short e-mail.
Best regards,
P=
hilip
Shulman
&=
nbsp; &n=
bsp; &nb=
sp;
on 3/29/05 1:56 AM, James Kugel at jlkugel@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
> Dear Course Participants:
>
> I hope everyone has had a chance to read through the Introduction =
to
> "The Bible As It Was" as well as chapter 7, "Abraham
Journeys From
> Chaldea."
>
> If you haven't managed to get a copy of the book, well, the
> Introduction can wait for a bit, but sooner or later you should get =
to
> it, since it really tries to explain how a somewhat quirky school =
of
> ancient biblical interpreters got started in the third century BCE, =
and
> why they ended up being so influential.
>
> As for chapter 7: I think most people who have had a =
traditional
> Jewish education "know" that Abraham was the first person =
to
believe
> that there is only one God (i.e., the first monotheist). What =
this
> chapter tries to show is that this idea is not actually stated =
anywhere
> in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). It really developed out of a =
creative
> reading of a certain passage in the book of Joshua, Josh. =
24:2-3.
>
> Now, this course is supposed to be run just like a live course at =
a
> university. So, assuming you've read the material (an assumption =
always
> accompanied by an element of uncertainty, even at Harvard), here =
are my
> questions:
>
> 1. What do you think about the way ancient interpreters =
interpreted
> Josh. 24:2-3? Did they really believe what they said?
>
> 2. Is there something else I should have added in my explanation =
of
> HOW they interpreted this passage, something that might make =
their
> interpretation seem a bit more plausible? (Authors always have =
second
> thoughts. If I had to explain this passage now, I'd do it a =
little
> differently.)
>
> 3. Where do you think Abraham was when God said to him (in Gen.
> 12:1) "Go forth from your country and your kindred and your =
father's
> house to the land that I will show you"? The end of the =
previous
chapter
> relates how Abraham left Ur with his family to go north to Haran =
(about
> 1000 km away!). Logically, he was already there by the start of =
chapter
> 12. But if so, why does God tell him to leave his country and =
his
> kindred -- didn't he already do that?
>
> I hope this should get things started -- your thoughts, please.
>
> _____________
> James Kugel
> 11 Efrayim St.
> 93621 Jerusalem
> Israel
> Tel. 972 2 672-2197
> Fax. 972 2 673-3027
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5353A.04E72680--
From ngfp-bookclub@lists.ngfp.org Wed Mar 30 13:30:12 2005
From: ngfp-bookclub@lists.ngfp.org (James Kugel)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:30:12 +0200
Subject: [NGFP-BookClub] On-line course - 1st lesson comments
In-Reply-To: <04d401c534c0$8281ff90$6401a8c0@Yuvaloffice>
Message-ID: <000001c5352c$9d801fe0$0900000a@F30184114968199>
Dear Mr. Warshai:
You said it better than I did. I quite agree with your first two
paragraphs, and they make an important point: what we are looking at
here is the beginning of the process that leads right into the Mishnah,
Talmuds, etc.
I hope I did not imply that the book of Chronicles was completed in
the second century BCE. Actually, scholars think it went through a long
process of composition, but that it was completed sometime in the fourth
century BCE. In any case, it certainly is a good example of how the
later books of the Bible often contain interpretations of things found
in earlier books. Actually, I tried to make this point myself in the
Introduction that was assigned last week. See especially pp. 2-14 for
some examples of biblical interpretation from within the Bible,
especially the books of Chronicles, Daniel, Haggai, and Ezra.
Where does it all start? I think even to single out Deuteronomy is a
bit off. Again, as I tried to say in that Introduction, "the
interpretation of the Bible goes back virtually as far as the oldest
texts within it." That said, however, there can be little doubt that the
golden age of biblical interpretation really begins with the sources we
are examining, starting from the third century on. Scholars have studied
the earlier material, but it really can't be compared the post-3rd
century material in either quantity or sophistication.
_____________
James Kugel
11 Efrayim St.
93621 Jerusalem
Israel
Tel. 972 2 672-2197
Fax. 972 2 673-3027
-----Original Message-----
From: ngfp-bookclub-admin@lists.ngfp.org
[mailto:ngfp-bookclub-admin@lists.ngfp.org] On Behalf Of Yuval Warshai
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 2:36 AM
To: ngfp-bookclub@lists.ngfp.org
Subject: Re: [NGFP-BookClub] On-line course - 1st lesson comments
Dear Professor Kugel,
In your introduction to the course (not the intro to the book, but
to the
course, found in the PDF file called 'kugelintro.pdf', found on the
web at
http://members.ngfp.org/Courses/Kugel/kugelintro.pdf), on pp. 3-4,
in
answering your own question [question on p. 3: "But why should
anyone care
about the beginning of biblical interpretation? Isn't the end more
important - what people know today about the Bible?] you write: "So
studying
the very earliest traces of this process is extremely important: it
really
shows why later Jewish (and Christian) interpreters said what they
said, and
what it is in the Bible itself that served as the springboard for
their
interpretations."
Shouldn't one say also, regarding the same initial question, that
the
process of Jewish interpretation of the Bible, as it was to be later
crystallized and "published" in the Mishnah, Talmud, and midrash,
actually
is a very long, recurring, and unending process, that started, in
fact, as
soon as the 'ink dried up' on the last of the then "published" books
of the
Bible. This process of interpretation, even though it was
crystallized and
"published" only later, beginning with the Mishnah, starts with the
interpretations we are studying in this course. It came to be what
it was
later, in the published works of the Mishnah, the Talmud, and
midrash,
through a process of interpretation. We are studying here the
beginnings of
this process, so we can better understand what they became later,
the
finished product. They became what they became later, in the
Mishnah, the
Talmud, and the midrash, because the process of crystallization into
those
works started as we see them here, at the very beginning.
Now, if you agree with the way I tried to articulate things in a
little more
detail above, there is something that can and should also be said
about this
process of interpretation. It does not really start only after the
ink was
maybe dry on the second book of Chronicles, which you imply, was
apparently
written "around 200 BCE." (p. 1) The last books of the Bible itself
are
already a sort of commentary, interpretation, and expansion of
themes that
appear on books written before them. For example, the two books of
Chronicles seem to be an interpretation, a commentary and an
expansion upon
the text on the previous books of Samuel (1 and 2), and Kings (1 an
2). Or
the book of Ruth, which interprets, comments, and expands on themes
found
much earlier, in the Torah itself. Or all the books of the Prophets,
which
interpret, comment, and expand on themes of the Torah, but in a type
of
later, different language, with a different type of vocabulary. And
so on
and so forth.
A very similar argument can in fact be made even aobut the last book
of the
Torah, Deuteronomy, which interprets, comments, and expands, from a
different perspective, and with a different language and vocabulary,
on many
of the themes already written about in the previous books of the
Torah. So
actually, one could say that this "very long, recurring, and
unending
process" of interpretation of Scripture I alluded to above, starts
even much
earlier than the period we are focusing on on this course. Once it
started,
in fact, I believe, it never stopped or ended. It always continued,
building
on what was before. The more difficult question, to my mind, would
be
supposedly to try and determine precisely when it starts. In other
words,
what exactly constitutes the initial "hard core" of Scripture, upon
which
everything that comes later was based, either as interpretation, as
commentary, or as plain expansion, using very often new language and
new
vocabulary.
Yuval Warshai
Ann Arbor, MI
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kugel"