Mountain

[Avi]

According to midrash God went to all of the other people of the world first to see if they would accept Torah. They would not. Last of all he went to the Jews and they would only accept with a mountain held over them. So yeah, Dream's more or less correct from a Jewish perspective. Chosenness implies responsibility, not privilege. The talmud compares it to the case of a kohein (priest) and a non-priest. The kohein has more responsibilities but isn't considered by any means more special or privileged. So too for gentiles.

-- Dauer

Dauer, do you believe that G-d literally held the mountain over the heads of the Jews ? Or is it a metaphor, allegory or allusion ?

 

[dauer]

I'm an agnostic so no, I don't believe it literally. I don't think most anyone does except for the ultra-orthodox who've turned to literalism regarding even midrash.

 

[Avi]

I'm an agnostic so no, I don't believe it literally. I don't think most anyone does except for the ultra-orthodox who've turned to literalism regarding even midrash.

So then how is it possible to create a linkage to the notion of chosenness ?

 

[dauer]

So then how is it possible to create a linkage to the notion of chosenness ?

Because it's a theological statement, not a historical one.

 

[Avi]

Because it's a theological statement, not a historical one.

I did not realize your were an agnostic, that is interesting.

But I am still have trouble understanding your view on chosenness. R. Mordachi Kaplan rejected the notion of chosenness. I am studying his reason(s) for doing this, but so far, they appear to be pretty practical in nature to me. For example the quote I put in the other thread listed rejection of "superiority" and "supernatural" ideas which relate to chosenness.

If I understand your argument correctly, you do not reject chosenness, but it is based on G-d and the mountain, which you do not believe in a literal sense, but in a theological sense.

So I guess my question now is, don't theological notions have to be based on reality and rationality ? Or are there some exceptions ?? Is the Revelation one of the exceptions ?

 

[dauer]

I did not realize your were an agnostic, that is interesting.

I don't think we can know whether or not God exists and I don't think it's more likely that God exists than that he doesn't. That said, I do consider my relationship with God very important, if not central, to my life. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not into religion for some objective truth.

For example the quote I put in the other thread listed rejection of "superiority" and "supernatural" ideas which relate to chosenness.

The Jewish concept of chosenness isn't about superiority as the story I pointed to that relates a kohein and israelite to a Jew and a non-Jew demonstrates . Kaplan's rejection of superiority is not a rejection of the Jewish concept, but of the gentile concept.

If I understand your argument correctly, you do not reject chosenness, but it is based on G-d and the mountain, which you do not believe in a literal sense, but in a theological sense.

Haza"l don't present us with a systematic theology. Quite a bit of their thought, however, is presented via midrash. In the story of the angels bickering about why God shouldn't create man, for example, where God ends up creating man behind their backs, as it were, we're not meant to get from this that God argued with the angels and had to create man behind their backs. Rather, it's a story as I understand it about both humanity's inclinations toward war etc and God's infinite compassion and love for humanity. The point would be clear enough, but the angels in the story which I don't have in front of me and can't cite perfectly, are named for certain faculties that would be critical of man for one reason or another. Another example is an aggadic tale about a man who who's seeing a woman named "chayruta" and neglecting his wife. Chayruta is of course very close to chevruta, a study partner, and it would be unfortunate not to get that connection. Similarly here, it's not about God literally holding a mountain over the heads of the Israelites. If the Torah is considered a great privilege you don't need to make a person receive it with a knife to his throat. So we have God, after visiting the other nations of the world who wouldn't accept, finally turning to the Israelites who only accept when threatened with death. This is no reflection on how privileged the Jewish people are for being "chosen", as it were.

For more on midrash see:

My Jewish Learning: Filling in the Gaps

and

My Jewish Learning: Overview: Midrash Aggadah

Whether or not I reject chosenness isn't at issue. I'm presenting a general Jewish perspective on chosenness. The Jewish concept doesn't offend me nor do I see value in its rejection. I do see value in saying, "I'm held up to a higher standard and have to work all that much harder at being a good person." I don't see anything wrong with a culture or society that emphasizes its people should live to such a standard.

So I guess my question now is, don't theological notions have to be based on reality and rationality ?

As I said previously, midrash isn't understood literally except by the ultra-orthodox -- and in doing so they're abandoning tradition rather than embracing it -- so for a Jew I don't understand why there would be any conflict between rationalism and midrash. It wasn't a problem for any number of Jewish rationalists including Ramba"m. Maybe you mean that we shouldn't hold any theology unless it adheres to a rigid materialism. To me that's off-the-mark. Even in secular disciplines there are theoretical entities that aren't necessarily perfect descriptions of the phenomena that they refer back to. The TE's are in the language of man. There are some who will agree with a particular TE because the baggage associated seems useful eg Gaia Hypothesis. The world isn't a living organism as near as I can tell, but relating it to one aides a shift in perspective.

-- Dauer