Still, old-school interpreters (who have not read the book) caution against Plotz's offhand approach: a young man, a computer, a Bible and a big cup of coffee do not theological seriousness make. "You should be aware of what the tradition is," says Arnold Eisen, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary. "You shouldn't just pick up the book and say 'I've got it!' You need help."The book in question is David Plotz's (editor of Slate.com) published version of his "Blogging the Bible" project that was inspired by his reading of Genesis 34 (the דינה narrative) at his niece's Bat Mitzvah. Having never learned that story before, he decided to read the תנ"ך cover-to-cover and blog about each chapter.
Let's forget Plotz for a second: Did Eisen really say that? Was this taken out of context?
To Eisen's credit are more enlightened quotations later on in the article and the instinctive "he couldn't have" response that struck me upon reading his first quotation. What "tradition" is he talking about? Rashi as God? Spinoza as god? Midrash as Truth? חז"ל's approach to Esau or Ishmael? Is not the "help" to which Eisen refers precisely the humanistic, liberal education the editor of Slate.com has? Or is it מקראות גדולות?
Is not the purpose of תורה that it is the (for Eisen, I think) inspired word of God transmitted through human beings, able to speak to each of us at every moment of our lives?
I'd like for Eisen to define "tradition."
I'd like for Eisen to explain to which passages he was referring as requiring this "tradition." (מעשי מרכבה? The genocide of אגג? David's adultery? קרן אור?)
I am befuddled.
Posts
1 comment:
I saw that comment in Newsweek too, and was startled: the Eisen that I know wouldn't be so dismissive of a sincere (and actually often insightful, as well as frequently funny) attempt to engage with the biblical text. But at the risk of sounding like an Eisen apologist, when I re-read the paragraph, I noticed that the quote itself does not say that the author of the article suggests it says.
The quote (let's assume that it's not actually a mis-quote, even if it may have been taken out of context) says something like this: "You know, there's a whole tradition of interpretation, and for Jews, that's really where the great stuff is, so the idea that one confronts the text face-to-face is a little alien to the historical Jewish spiritual tradition."
The writer's interpretation, on the other hand, accuses Eisen of being an "old-school interpreter" (whatever that means) who is uttering a caution against Plotz's approach and maligning it as unserious. That seems like a rather significant leap, at least based on the few words of his that she shared with us.
So, my conclusion? I'm afraid I find it easier to critique Lisa Miller for her mis-characterization and possible mis-understanding than Arnie Eisen for his theology of interpretation.
Post a Comment