This site contains the account - from the back of Lawrence Kelemen's Permission to Receive - of Rabbi Kelemen's correspondence with the Roman Catholic Church about several apparent inconsistencies within the New Testament. The Church referred Rabbi Kelemen to two books by Dr. Raymond E. Brown, both bearing the Vatican's stamp of approval. The site quotes a few different ideas from Dr. Brown's books, including the assumption that Jesus' birth was not virginal (contrary to popular Christian belief). Dr. Brown cautions, however, that "we should not underestimate the adverse pedagogical impact on the understanding of divine sonship if the virginal conception is denied." And the site reports that
"Brown also considers the possibility that Christianity's founders intended to create the impression that an actual virginal conception took place. Early Christians needed just such a myth, Brown notes, since Mary was widely known to have delivered Jesus too early: 'Unfortunately, the historical alternative to the virginal conception has not been a conception in wedlock; it has been illegitimacy.' Brown writes that:
"Some sophisticated Christians could live with the alternative of illegitimacy; they would see this as the ultimate stage in Jesus' emptying himself and taking on the form of a servant, and would insist, quite rightly, that an irregular begetting involves no sin by Jesus himself. But illegitimacy would destroy the images of sanctity and purity with which Matthew and Luke surround Jesus' origins and would negate the theology that Jesus came from the pious Anawim of Israel. For many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian mystery." [emphasis added]
I quote this because of recent events in orthodox Jewish circles. The devoutly Catholic sentiments of Dr. Brown - his fears of the consequences of revealing the unromanticised facts about Christian doctrine to the public - make me think of the banning of Rabbi Nosson Slifkin's books (and of Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky's The Making of a Godol), which it seems likely was for almost exactly the same reasons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't know why they banned Nosson Slifkin's books. But if I had been consulted, I would have banned them too. Not because of this or that statement. Rather, because the common thread that seems to run through the books in discussion of instances where it appears that that the statements of Chazal and the views of contemporary science do not concur. Mr. Slifkin is always ready to favour a Torah opinion or an interpretation of Chazal which will smooth over the contradiction and assume that those Torah opinions that do not reflect the scientific truth are in error.
This is a grave offensive view exacerbated by publishing it in a book.
Science is not concerned with the truth but with the conclusion based on the evidence available and the scientific importance of the available evidence. A real scientist will not be ashamed to admit that they do not possess the truth about anything.
To be ready to educate the Jewish public that contemporary science is held in greater esteem that Chazal or the Rishonim and that the words of Chazal and the Rishonim need always to be reinterpreted if they do not concur with that of contemporary science but that scientific opinion is fact and bedrock, is a belittling of Chazal and the Rishonim. Whatevet point is being made needs to reflect the fact that Chazal were concerned with the truth and if that idea is going to get lost, it is better that the book not be distributed.
Response to barryfadams:
Science is not concerned with the truth but with the conclusion based on the evidence available and the scientific importance of the available evidence.
No. Science's whole purpose is to discover the truth by drawing the most likely conclusions from the available evidence.
A real scientist will not be ashamed to admit that they do not possess the truth about anything.
If by "truth," you mean "irrefutable, 100% guaranteed truth," then you are correct. That's intellectual honesty. And Chazal would have admitted the same thing.
To ... educate the Jewish public that contemporary science is held in greater esteem that Chazal or the Rishonim and that the words of Chazal and the Rishonim need always to be reinterpreted if they do not concur with that of contemporary science but that scientific opinion is fact and bedrock, is a belittling of Chazal and the Rishonim.
Why? Modern scientists have access to centuries of additional (and very productive) scientific research which Chazal and the Rishonim were not exposed to. It does not belittle Chazal to say that they did not have the benefit of knowing scientific developments that had not yet occurred.
Whatevet point is being made needs to reflect the fact that Chazal were concerned with the truth
It seems to me that in his books, R. Slifkin is always careful to emphasize that point. Of course Chazal were concerned with the truth, and they did their best to find it. In some cases, however, the truth is more accessible to us than it was to them.
Post a Comment