In 1263, in Barcelona, a "disputation" occured. In which, as is often the case with disputations under authority, was rigged so that the Christian side of the debate had nothing to lose and everything to gate, while the Jewish side of the debate had everything to lose and nothing to gain. Robert Chazan reports in an article
"Deliberations were undertaken with the lord King and with certain Dominicans and Franciscans who were present, not that the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ -- which because of it's certitude cannot be placed in dispute -- be put at the center of attention with the Jews as uncertain, but that the truth of that faith be made manifest in order to destroy the Jews' errors, and to shake the confidence of many Jews...Friar Paul proposed to the said rabbi that, with the aid of God, he would prove from the writings shared and accepted by the Jews the following contentions, in order:
According to the report, the truth of Christianity was not to be put in question;"
This was not a fair way to debate the subject. Because if Christian sources can't be used or put to the test in the debate, then there is no incentive for either side to come to a compromise or "synthetic" position. The best that can happen is that the Jewish side survive to debate another day. At the worst, the Jewish faith would be unfairly savaged and yet another excuse for pogroms and persecutions found. And indeed it is reported that the debate led to Friar Paul Christian, a convert from Judaism, to try to repeat his successes in France and to induce the King of France to require Jews to wear a badge on their dress to identify them.
But what interests me is that he casually disputed the "aggadic" texts of the oral Mishna that were being used by Friar Paul. When the report of the debate was shared later, other Jews refused to use this line of debate, but that he was willing to do this in the first place says something about the difference in understanding of religion that is an important key to understanding both religions and perhaps finding a way to resolve religious disputes in our own age.
As a sage he was in love with the stories of the "aggada". Yet he disputes it saying "I responded and said: 'I do not believe in this aggadah, however it is proof for my views.' Friar Paul responds according to his version 'Behold he denies their texts.' I said: 'Truly I do not believe that the Messiah was born on the day of the destruction of the Second Temple. Thus either this aggadah is not true or it has another meaning related to the mysteries of the sages.'"
This indicates a deep awareness of the four types of religious inquiry; Literal, figurative, interpretative and inspirational. In other words, it indicates a deep grasp of "upaya" or skillfulness.
For Christians however this was something very strange and fearful. For Christians, religious texts were "auctoritates" and to deny their literal veracity was "blasphemy." But in truth, religion has to be treated this way to be useful, creative, to change with changing circumstances and if people are to ever grasp the true general principles of life without getting confused by all the myths and confusing and often mixed messages of religious texts and stories. It is also the reason why many Jews could become Buddhists without stopping being Jews, while most Christians have felt compelled to apostasize in order to get involved with other thoughts even a little.
There is still a lot of this authoritarian and literalist tradition around. And as a result there are a lot of confused religious people. Their teachers so love the doctrines of their sect that they force themselves into contortions and to go to great lengths to "prove" that a story that is told for figurative reasons (and thus is very 'true') is somehow literally true. This leads to cynicism, hypocrisy and "false-belief." If one preaches something as literally true when one knows it is possibly not true literally at all, one is engaging in psychically unstable behavior that can even lead to evil behavior. Witness here the inquisition, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation; and the Nazis. This also twists the underlying truths one is trying to get across. This is as if the story of the Fox and the Grapes had to have actually happened for someone to get the message of the story. As a result folks never recognize when they have their own "sour grapes." The roots of this confusion are in notions of the sacred that establish "heresy" arbitrarily and declare it an absolute evil, or that make texts so sacred as to be unquestioned. It establishes either/or choices where the answer is elsewhere. And it basically deifies individuals, hierarchies or committees of human beings which is the sin of presumption and arrogance.
Unfortunately this literal-minded and twisted mindset is present in spades elements of "orthodox" Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent in Judaism and some Buddhist, Hindu or other circles. The people encouraging the literalism often know better themselves but they seem bound by the "groups" they are in to keep "on topic".
The model Nachmonides used to approach the Aggadic texts is a correct one. Even authoritative texts should to be treated as the opinions, stories and thinking of the author and never taken out of context or held as so sacred that common sense, evidence and reason must be suspended. It is not appropriate to take any text out of it's appropriate contexts of study and inspiration. The tradition of Buddhism says this explicitly. And the doctrine of the PaRDeS, which was known to Christians and Moslems, restates the same doctrine in a logical manner.
Source: Originally published in Speculum Vol 52, No 4, (Oct 1977).
Posted by cholte at December 30, 2004 10:55 PM