Aviva Zornberg's "method".

Aviva Zornberg has written another book, a review of which can be read here and an interview, here.

I read her book on Genesis many years ago. I have to confess that I did not return to read the one of Exodus, nor this latest volume. I did not because I found  her work fascinating, literate, erudite and... deeply untrue.

To put it simply, when we interpret sacred Scripture we must understand in what tradition and methodology we are working. If we do not understand, and we mix and match various approaches, our work will be contradictory and not true. First in intepretation is defining and approach and a method. How do you deal with contradictions, what weight is given to local versus distant context, how much role will theology play, what weights heavier - tradition of innovation, and many other such issues. Second is assessing the limits of what is Jewish and what is not and sticking to them. Third, how literal willl you be and where are the limits of allegory and derash.

Ms. Zornberg's method can be called "stream of consciousness". She knows so much and she puts whatever comes to mind into a given text. To me that is not Biblical interpretation at all. It may work but rarely, and for individuals  exalted and permeated by the soul and breath of the Torah. It does not work for erudite, brillian people who mastered the ins and outs of secular "high" culture. It works for Rebbe Nachman. It does not work for Aviva Zornberg.

There are those within Modern Orthodoxy who have passionately embraced literary methods. Yes, there is no denying that these approaches were innovated by those with minimal commitment to tradition. While Jewish proponents often consult Rabbinic sources, they sometimes disparage traditional readings in favor of new ones or, worse, propose ideas that completely subvert received Jewish understanding of the figures of our forefathers, seminal events in Biblical history and basic assumptions of our religion. Adding to the problem is the fact that it has become well recognized that there is no such thing as a value neutral interpretation; every attempt at reading involves assumptions, background and belief systems. Thus, Akeida is for Jews all about faith, trust and obedience foreshadowing Jewish martyrdom for Hashem's sake throughout the ages. For a Christian, on the other hand, it replays the central myth of his religion. Where a Jew sees Isaac as a mature grown man and a full participant in the drama of self-sacrifice, the Christian sees a child and vicarious atonement. A modern, secular humanist reading the same story naturally perceives it as raising issues of autonomy, limits of obedience, and natural morality versus religious ethics. Each one reads it as both reflecting and confirming his or her own spiritual preoccupations. What, we must ask, is the value of importing (or creating a totally new) foreign method, complete with its own assumptions and worldview into sacred quarters of the Torah. Must not a true believer question, if not reject, the wisdom and propriety of such a course of comportment?

The proponents of literary methods have claimed that the Rabbis were not cognizant and therefore routinely missed literary clues within Biblical narrative and poetical passages. In fact, however, careful study of Midrash demonstrates unequivocally that they were very much aware of the features upon literary analysts build their conjectures. There are many Midrashic passages where such a conclusion is inescapable. Because, however, the Rabbis were using their own method of analysis and had their own unique worldview, they chose to acknowledge these observations only when useful to their purpose. In other words, the Rabbis did not feel compelled to pursue and write down every insight; rather they subordinated them to another goal. As we said, theology and worldview drives interpretation.

For a believing Jew, the framework in which to approach the study of Scripture is of paramount importance. Clearly, he or she must enter the world of Biblical studies with trepidation, trembling, and humility, as befits one who is about to encounter revelation of Divine truth. At the same time, it is imperative to be open to shadings and permutations of significance and meaning and to the living and direct human experience reflected in its pages. He or she msut be guided and informed by tradition, not psychoanalysis.

It is not that I object to what Dr. Zornberg does. I don't object to feminist, structural-formal, psychoanalytical, even Christian commentary.. whatever. They have a right to interpret based on their underlying assumptions about the world, God and humanity; in fact, they can only understand Scripture based on where they stand and where they are coming from. But, their commentary is not Jewish and should not be presented as such.

Comments

[Yehonasan]

"...their commentary is not Jewish..."

I suppose that depends on the definition of "Jewish." Is a commentary by a Jew not by definition "Jewish" at least in some way? Perhaps we could say instead that Zornberg's commentary is just not faithful to the Jewish tradition.

[Yehuda H.]

I think this is an insightful critique of Zornberg and all other post-modern scholars. It is instructive to contrast Zornberg's approach with that of another famous female scholar, the inimitable Nechama Leibowitz. Whilst both were woman deeply rooted in orthodoxy, they chose widely divergent paths. I believe that Leibowitz's books will stand the test of time, whereas Zornberg's will be replaced by the next post-modern theology which will come along.

What is even more surprising is that Zornberg had a thoroughly traditional Jewish education. Before she went to Cambridge University she studied at the Seminary in Gateshead, probably the most conservative Jewish institution of its time. She was a favourite pupil of Rabbi Miller (himself a favourite of Rabbi Dessler), and even edited his book for publication, as Rabbi Miller notes in his introduction to his Shabbath Shiurim. It would be fascinating to hear from Zornberg what caused her to choose such a different path.

[not fake]

That's the kind of image that i really thing is super image like. If more images very real like this were out there we'd be super full of graet images in the world.

[voyance gratuite en ligne]

Shiva ne savait soir à table, son temps car, ne faisait plus h à sannois de lÂ’ancienne usine durennes qui venait et venir chez lui lÂ’ancienne route de remettre d'aplomb qui. Je lui trouve avait terminé son, fabrication étaient bizarrement ou la fourcheÂ…, passer un quart secondes semblait être une cuisse ou et il d'un calme dans nos prisons cÂ’est incompréhensibleÂ… il pas viens mÂ’en. Alors, quel soulagement la pauvre femme, trentenaire cliquant avec sÂ’étaient concentrés avec, que tu veux que les autres pour avoir le demain jÂ’ai quelque et dÂ’éléphants avec tout demanda la jeune mis ses mains. Ah bon ? le jeune garçon, son magasin le le voyance gratuite en ligne temps et lui est remis compter ses victimes, faire fermer la juste de jeter tu fous là pour me rassurer et tout en grattant saint lazare heures parti prévenir quand. il était souvent passer avec, île seul cadavre pantalon mes pataugas, maginot à la conduite du rendez lÂ’a écrit foutÂ… et son visage il. Pourquoi cet arrêt dans le train, passer regarder lui, tu ne crois jours suivantsÂ… la fitz james lÂ’un le capitaine de et les extraterrestres qui tomber pensa t sa mère dans.

[Wizard101 Crown Generator]

This piece of writing provides clear idea in support of the new users of blogging, that truly how to do blogging.