Your conspiracy theory that Chazal purposely withheld from us that the Torah is a book of fairytales, is something I would expect from Alexander Hool, not from you.
That's what I thought you would say! Should I write a book about this new discovery? Dr. Happy PhD in Biblical Studies? Because for that field, this is all the "evidence" you need.
But hear me out...I think it's more likely that they are both about mourning and suffering, and are both probably using common Hebrew expressions. Which is why they have some similar phrasing. Not that Yirmiyah had an Iyov open and was copying from it. That's on a pshat level. On a drash level, sure, you can say there are connections.
"This avoids the issue of retrojection apologetics, where people try to fit the Torah into saying science which had not existed. "
It doesn't avoid anything. It is the greatest retrojection apologetic possible, trying to fit Torah into the viewpoint of Nahum Sarna and/or some extrapolation from the shiurim of Rabbi Fohrman, which we have no record of anybody ever even entertaining for 3000 years.
The Malbim says that giants existed and were called the "sons of the gods", just like the Torah refers to avodah zara as gods in hundreds of places. What does this have to do with your thesis?
I am all for saying the Torah isn't telling us advanced astrophysics in the creation story part of Bereishis--if that is what you call "retrojection apologetics". But science and history are not the same thing.
Chazal clearly thought the Torah was telling us an accurate history of the unfolding of the anceint world. Adam and Eve are the first humans created by Hashem with no biological ancestors.
And as far as obvious parallels, maybe these ANE civilizations borrowed their stories from us and not the other way around? Or maybe they just gave their own take on the actual events that really happened as the Torah descibed?
I just saw Rabi Hertz's Chumash in my shul on Shabbos. In between the Chumashim he has various small essays, with some of the most articulate demolitions of Biblical Criticism I have seen ever seen over the course of several essays. You have probably read them, just wanted to tell you I was impressed. This despite Rabbi Hertz writing several objectionable things elsewhere.
What do you think the Taninim are. There is clearly some idea being referenced repeatedly throughout tanach but never fully elaborated. It clearly lines up nicely with the other myths we know existed in the area. It would be downright silly to ignore this
To those who dismiss this as "repeating" or "repurposing" fairy tales, would you be so kind as to make the case that this is not what the Torah is doing in the cited examples?
The proposition that the Torah is repeating fairy tales is absurd. I wasn't asking for proof, I was asking what Ash thinks the precedent is. And his answer seemingly was that other parts of the Torah are fake also, like Rachav's speech, and Yonah. Ok everybody, Yonah's fake, like Judy Klitsner demonstrated with ironclad textual proofs. This is a great precedent for saying Noach's fake also. Heck, I can say the Torah is a collection of bubble gum recipes. What the proof it's not?
"This happens all the time intrabiblically (There’s a great book “Subversive Sequels in the Bible” that demonstrates this), when Tanakh uses and rewrites earlier texts. Rabbi David Fohrman calls this intertextual wordplay the worlds first hypertext. This is pretty much agreed to by all scholars, and by chazal as well. "
Can you give an example that you think is both compelling and is close to what you/Nahum Sarna is trying to do with Parshas Bereishis and Noach, that the Torah is repeating fairy tales as if they are real, and building entire genealogies of the world and Jewish nation based on them?
Probably the best example is brought by Joshua Berman in Ani Maamin, where Sefer Yehoshua has Rachav intertwine the words of the Aseres Hdibros in her speech to show she was a believer, despite the unlikelihood of her actually doing that in real life.
Another example is how Yonah consistently uses words from Noach and reverses in a sense Hashem's actions in the flood.
I looked back at Rachav’s speech, and see no evidence that she is “intertwining” (another retrojection apologetic buzzword) anything, or that she would have been unlikely to make such a speech. This is typical Biblical Criticism navel-gazing (and I know that Berman is trying to use the tools of Biblical Criticism to subvert it, much like you are claiming the Torah does to fairy tales. But nevertheless…) Same with Yonah. It’s just more evidence-free silliness. The similarities between Yonah and the Mabul are because….they both happen in the water. Not because Yonah is a made-up story trying to reinterpret the made-up Mabul story. This doesn’t mean you can’t use drush and remez to somehow tie them together, but that’s the realm of drush and remez.
You can’t bring a support to your modern Biblical Critic view from other modern Biblical Critics and say, gee golly gosh, isn't this just the obvious understanding of the Dor Hamidbar, Chazal, and all the Meforshim.
I happen to kind of agree with your approach. Except that it seems clear from your phraseology that you have no idea what Gilgamesh and Baal were. You think they were *just* myths and not deep mystical insights into the way the world works in the spiritual plane. Your presentation is very 2024, and misses the "pnimius" of it all. If Pharaoh was evil and wicked, he was no idiot. In fact, he was exceedingly wise, which is why he rose to power in the first place. Back then, it seems from chazal, that's how it worked. That was the world of kishuf and avoda zara. So yes, while the torah was technically the anti-culture, it was the anti-culture of a very deep monster, a truly formidable opponent.
Obviously this is the beginning of a long discussion, not enough to gloss over in one short comment, but it's a start.
Chalila. I would never take it that far. I just agree that there is value in understanding how the torah is an anti-culture piece of work. But, as it turns out, once that culture is exposed for what it really was (a very mystical, spiritual and magical understanding of the world- the way the world *really* works), there is little difference between you and me. The followed conclusion ash comes to us because he'll tell you Pharaoh and Bilaam were dealing with garbage nonsense
Your conspiracy theory that Chazal purposely withheld from us that the Torah is a book of fairytales, is something I would expect from Alexander Hool, not from you.
At least I'm self.aware enough to realize it's a conspiracy 😃
On Tisha bav night I noticed lots of parallels between Eicha and Iyov
compare
דָּרַךְ קַשְׁתּוֹ וַיַּצִּיבֵנִי כַּמַּטָּרָא לַחֵץ
to
וְאָחַ֣ז בְּ֭עׇרְפִּי וַֽיְפַצְפְּצֵ֑נִי וַיְקִימֵ֥נִי לֹ֝֗ו לְמַטָּרָֽה׃
and
הֵבִיא בְּכִלְיֹתָי בְּנֵי אַשְׁפָּתוֹ
to
יָסֹבּוּ עָלַי רַבָּיו יְפַלַּח כִּלְיוֹתַי
and
הִשְׂבִּיעַנִי בַמְּרוֹרִים הִרְוַנִי לַעֲנָה
to
לֹא־יִתְּנֵנִי הָשֵׁב רוּחִי כִּי יַשְׂבִּעַנִי מַמְּרֹרִים
and
וַיַּגְרֵס בֶּחָצָץ שִׁנָּי הִכְפִּישַׁנִי בָּאֵפֶר
to
וַיִּֽקַּֽח־לֹ֣ו חֶ֔רֶשׂ לְהִתְגָּרֵ֖ד בֹּ֑ו וְה֖וּא יֹשֵׁ֥ב בְּתֹוךְ־הָאֵֽפֶר
and
חֶלְקִי יְהֹוָה אָמְרָה נַפְשִׁי עַל־כֵּן אוֹחִיל לוֹ
to
הֵ֣ן יִ֭קְטְלֵנִי (לא) [לֹ֣ו] אֲיַחֵ֑ל
and
הָיִיתִי שְּׂחֹק לְכׇל־עַמִּי
to
שְׂחֹ֤ק לְרֵעֵ֨הוּ ׀ אֶֽהְיֶ֗ה
and
גָּדַר דְּרָכַי בְּגָזִית נְתִיבֹתַי עִוָּה
to
אׇרְחִ֣י גָ֭דַר וְלֹ֣א אֶעֱבֹ֑ור וְעַ֥ל נְ֝תִיבֹותַ֗י חֹ֣שֶׁךְ יָשִֽׂים׃
So it must be that Eicha is using, rewriting, and subverting Iyov (or vice versa).
They're clearly playing off each other, yes
That's what I thought you would say! Should I write a book about this new discovery? Dr. Happy PhD in Biblical Studies? Because for that field, this is all the "evidence" you need.
But hear me out...I think it's more likely that they are both about mourning and suffering, and are both probably using common Hebrew expressions. Which is why they have some similar phrasing. Not that Yirmiyah had an Iyov open and was copying from it. That's on a pshat level. On a drash level, sure, you can say there are connections.
"This avoids the issue of retrojection apologetics, where people try to fit the Torah into saying science which had not existed. "
It doesn't avoid anything. It is the greatest retrojection apologetic possible, trying to fit Torah into the viewpoint of Nahum Sarna and/or some extrapolation from the shiurim of Rabbi Fohrman, which we have no record of anybody ever even entertaining for 3000 years.
The Malbim: https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.6.4?lang=bi&with=Malbim&lang2=en
The Malbim says that giants existed and were called the "sons of the gods", just like the Torah refers to avodah zara as gods in hundreds of places. What does this have to do with your thesis?
I am all for saying the Torah isn't telling us advanced astrophysics in the creation story part of Bereishis--if that is what you call "retrojection apologetics". But science and history are not the same thing.
Chazal clearly thought the Torah was telling us an accurate history of the unfolding of the anceint world. Adam and Eve are the first humans created by Hashem with no biological ancestors.
And as far as obvious parallels, maybe these ANE civilizations borrowed their stories from us and not the other way around? Or maybe they just gave their own take on the actual events that really happened as the Torah descibed?
I just saw Rabi Hertz's Chumash in my shul on Shabbos. In between the Chumashim he has various small essays, with some of the most articulate demolitions of Biblical Criticism I have seen ever seen over the course of several essays. You have probably read them, just wanted to tell you I was impressed. This despite Rabbi Hertz writing several objectionable things elsewhere.
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/issues-jewish-thought/topical-issues-thought/torah-and-ancient-near-eastern-culture
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/torah-and-ancient-near-eastern-law-1
So you adduce support to Rabbi Ash from Rabbi Chaim Navon? His arguments suffer from the same flaw.
Do you agree or disagree that the Torah has a lot of parallels to ANE myths?
Vague parallels the same way Aztec myths have parallels to Hindu myths
And what flaw is that?
(Let's focus on Rabbi Chaim Navon, not Ash.)
Credulously accepting the dubious assumptions and methods of Bible critics. And saying the Torah is telling us fairy tales.
Let's start with taninim.
His "assumption" is "dubious" and only accepted by him because he's "credulous"?
OK.
Prove it.
He accepts, without any evidence, that the Taninim are a reference to Canaanite sea monsters.
What do you think the Taninim are. There is clearly some idea being referenced repeatedly throughout tanach but never fully elaborated. It clearly lines up nicely with the other myths we know existed in the area. It would be downright silly to ignore this
To those who dismiss this as "repeating" or "repurposing" fairy tales, would you be so kind as to make the case that this is not what the Torah is doing in the cited examples?
What's your question?
You had asked for proof that they were repurposed fairy tales. I am asking for proof that they are not.
The proposition that the Torah is repeating fairy tales is absurd. I wasn't asking for proof, I was asking what Ash thinks the precedent is. And his answer seemingly was that other parts of the Torah are fake also, like Rachav's speech, and Yonah. Ok everybody, Yonah's fake, like Judy Klitsner demonstrated with ironclad textual proofs. This is a great precedent for saying Noach's fake also. Heck, I can say the Torah is a collection of bubble gum recipes. What the proof it's not?
Why is it absurd? They share a lot of common elements as any unbiased observer can tell you.
1. Take almost any two long stories and you can find common elements.
2. Who is an unbiased observer?
תיקו
"This happens all the time intrabiblically (There’s a great book “Subversive Sequels in the Bible” that demonstrates this), when Tanakh uses and rewrites earlier texts. Rabbi David Fohrman calls this intertextual wordplay the worlds first hypertext. This is pretty much agreed to by all scholars, and by chazal as well. "
Can you give an example that you think is both compelling and is close to what you/Nahum Sarna is trying to do with Parshas Bereishis and Noach, that the Torah is repeating fairy tales as if they are real, and building entire genealogies of the world and Jewish nation based on them?
Probably the best example is brought by Joshua Berman in Ani Maamin, where Sefer Yehoshua has Rachav intertwine the words of the Aseres Hdibros in her speech to show she was a believer, despite the unlikelihood of her actually doing that in real life.
Another example is how Yonah consistently uses words from Noach and reverses in a sense Hashem's actions in the flood.
I looked back at Rachav’s speech, and see no evidence that she is “intertwining” (another retrojection apologetic buzzword) anything, or that she would have been unlikely to make such a speech. This is typical Biblical Criticism navel-gazing (and I know that Berman is trying to use the tools of Biblical Criticism to subvert it, much like you are claiming the Torah does to fairy tales. But nevertheless…) Same with Yonah. It’s just more evidence-free silliness. The similarities between Yonah and the Mabul are because….they both happen in the water. Not because Yonah is a made-up story trying to reinterpret the made-up Mabul story. This doesn’t mean you can’t use drush and remez to somehow tie them together, but that’s the realm of drush and remez.
You can’t bring a support to your modern Biblical Critic view from other modern Biblical Critics and say, gee golly gosh, isn't this just the obvious understanding of the Dor Hamidbar, Chazal, and all the Meforshim.
I'm curious how you respond to Shlomos point?
Can you elaborate on what you think his point is?
The Torah has obvious parallels. They are unlikely to be a coincidence. If we assume they are not, there's a few possibilities. Which do you assume?
https://daastorah.substack.com/p/a-new-chareidi-book-promotes-the-1e0/comment/65152165
I happen to kind of agree with your approach. Except that it seems clear from your phraseology that you have no idea what Gilgamesh and Baal were. You think they were *just* myths and not deep mystical insights into the way the world works in the spiritual plane. Your presentation is very 2024, and misses the "pnimius" of it all. If Pharaoh was evil and wicked, he was no idiot. In fact, he was exceedingly wise, which is why he rose to power in the first place. Back then, it seems from chazal, that's how it worked. That was the world of kishuf and avoda zara. So yes, while the torah was technically the anti-culture, it was the anti-culture of a very deep monster, a truly formidable opponent.
Obviously this is the beginning of a long discussion, not enough to gloss over in one short comment, but it's a start.
You agree with him? That the Mabul never happened, the Torah is repurposing fairy tales?
Chalila. I would never take it that far. I just agree that there is value in understanding how the torah is an anti-culture piece of work. But, as it turns out, once that culture is exposed for what it really was (a very mystical, spiritual and magical understanding of the world- the way the world *really* works), there is little difference between you and me. The followed conclusion ash comes to us because he'll tell you Pharaoh and Bilaam were dealing with garbage nonsense