At the end of my last post, I alluded to the fact that an element of German Jewish tradition took on a new meaning in the Conservative movement that put, over time, a considerable distance between it and Orthodoxy.
The method of studying, especially Talmud, of the European yeshivot, was, and is, to analyze, compare texts, and determine the meaning and implication of passages. This method goes back to the Medieval scholars of France and Germany, perfected in the great yeshivot of Central and Eastern Europe, especially Lithuania. Particularly after the Shabbetai Tzvi debacle, the goal of study became study itself, without emotionalism or spiritual speculation. I have previously discussed the fact that the Sepharadic method was different; placing the emphasis on coming to practical conclusions. In Germany, a new and controversial method of study developed. Texts were analyzed from a "scientific" perspective. Who made the statement? Why did he make it? Were there political or social motives behind statements? Did the fact that a particular Talmudic sage was the son/brother/brother-in-law/cousin of another sage influence his thinking? From a method of study, this turned into a movement in nineteenth-century Germany called Wissenschaft des Judentums (Jewish Knowledge). The Wissensschaft people turned away from Orthodoxy, even seeing traditional Judaism as a relic that needed to be studied. Being a "Jewish Scholar", for them, took on the meaning of the scientific study of what was. Spirituality or observance now took on a very secondary, or even negative, image. I am reminded of Woody Allen's sarcastic analysis of musicology; that one can't appreciate a great piece of music unless one knows the date and place of birth of the composer. Orthodox scholars pointed out that this method was draining Judaism of its "sacral power". My late friend, "Pet" of the Reform movement once told me "When things were good in Judaism, people studied Judaism. When things were bad, they wrote Jewish history".
Many of the faculty at the (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary were influenced by the Wissenscaft movement. Unlike their German counterparts, they remained committed, at first, to Jewish law and tradition. But the methodology changed from looking for what the sacred texts were telling us, to sources for analysis from a scientific, literary and social standpoint. It was a form of Orthodoxy to be sure, but one concentrating on what happened and why, rather than what is its enduring message. There was actually a serious consideration to merge JTS with (the Orthodox)Yeshiva University in the late 1920s, which failed not over the issue of theology or practice, but over the method of study.
Eventually, a portion of the faculty of JTS came up with the following reasoning: If we are seeing Judaism as the result of a historical process, can we not further that process? In other words, if our current values conflict with Talmudic, or even Biblical values, our own values should be seen as no less valid, trumping the ancient ones.
Most of the faculty of JTS recoiled at this idea. Analyze, see where things came from, study the implications of this analysis, sure. But reject Bible and Talmud in favor of societal trends? Absurd! From the 1930s onward, this became a divisive issue in the Conservative movement. The seminary had two factions in uneasy cohabitation. Students often felt compelled to choose sides. There were many areas of disagreement, but one issue in particular brought the movement to crisis in the late 1970s.That will be the topic of my next post.
The method of studying, especially Talmud, of the European yeshivot, was, and is, to analyze, compare texts, and determine the meaning and implication of passages. This method goes back to the Medieval scholars of France and Germany, perfected in the great yeshivot of Central and Eastern Europe, especially Lithuania. Particularly after the Shabbetai Tzvi debacle, the goal of study became study itself, without emotionalism or spiritual speculation. I have previously discussed the fact that the Sepharadic method was different; placing the emphasis on coming to practical conclusions. In Germany, a new and controversial method of study developed. Texts were analyzed from a "scientific" perspective. Who made the statement? Why did he make it? Were there political or social motives behind statements? Did the fact that a particular Talmudic sage was the son/brother/brother-in-law/cousin of another sage influence his thinking? From a method of study, this turned into a movement in nineteenth-century Germany called Wissenschaft des Judentums (Jewish Knowledge). The Wissensschaft people turned away from Orthodoxy, even seeing traditional Judaism as a relic that needed to be studied. Being a "Jewish Scholar", for them, took on the meaning of the scientific study of what was. Spirituality or observance now took on a very secondary, or even negative, image. I am reminded of Woody Allen's sarcastic analysis of musicology; that one can't appreciate a great piece of music unless one knows the date and place of birth of the composer. Orthodox scholars pointed out that this method was draining Judaism of its "sacral power". My late friend, "Pet" of the Reform movement once told me "When things were good in Judaism, people studied Judaism. When things were bad, they wrote Jewish history".
Many of the faculty at the (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary were influenced by the Wissenscaft movement. Unlike their German counterparts, they remained committed, at first, to Jewish law and tradition. But the methodology changed from looking for what the sacred texts were telling us, to sources for analysis from a scientific, literary and social standpoint. It was a form of Orthodoxy to be sure, but one concentrating on what happened and why, rather than what is its enduring message. There was actually a serious consideration to merge JTS with (the Orthodox)Yeshiva University in the late 1920s, which failed not over the issue of theology or practice, but over the method of study.
Eventually, a portion of the faculty of JTS came up with the following reasoning: If we are seeing Judaism as the result of a historical process, can we not further that process? In other words, if our current values conflict with Talmudic, or even Biblical values, our own values should be seen as no less valid, trumping the ancient ones.
Most of the faculty of JTS recoiled at this idea. Analyze, see where things came from, study the implications of this analysis, sure. But reject Bible and Talmud in favor of societal trends? Absurd! From the 1930s onward, this became a divisive issue in the Conservative movement. The seminary had two factions in uneasy cohabitation. Students often felt compelled to choose sides. There were many areas of disagreement, but one issue in particular brought the movement to crisis in the late 1970s.That will be the topic of my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment