Shortcomings of Metaphysical Minimalism: James Kugel

 For one pungent version of this critique, see Daniel Statman, “Negative Theology and the Meaning of the Commandments in Modern Orthodoxy”, Tradition 39:1 (2005), pp. 64-66.

  James Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture Then and Now (New York: Free Press, 2007), pp. 684-685.  In this connection, it is interesting to note a co-incidental similarity between Kugel (http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/conversation-with-james-kugel-about-revelation) and Leibowitz (Yahadut,Am Yehudi, u-Medinat Yisrael, ibid, p. 349), when both invoke halakhic determination of the Jewish calendar as illustration of the supremacy of Rabbinic fiat in determining the status and meaning of Scripture.

 How to Read the Bible (ibid), p. 687

 How to Read the Bible (ibid), p. 689

 This is in contrast to Leibowitz’s assertion – a la David Hume – that an “is” never leads to an “ought”, and that biblical historiography teaches us that it was precisely those generations that were far removed from prophecy and the miraculous events at Sinai who ensured the continuity of Judaism. See: Avi Sagi, “Dat le-lo Metaphysica, Mahshavot(ibid), p. 9.  See also Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Sheva Shanim, pp. 267-268.

 As relayed in a group discussion at the Yarnton center for Judaic and Hebrew Studies on May 28^th, 2013 devoted to the topic.

 http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/conversation-with-james-kugel-about-revelation/

  For application of this criticism to both Leibowitz and Soloveitchik – viewing each as limited in their attempt to understand the entire meaning of Scripture in accordance with one exclusive (normative or existential, respectively) hermeneutic principle, see Avi Sagi, “Contending with Modernity”, pp. 437-440.

 See Danny Statman, “Negative Theology”, pp. 55-68.

 See Alan Brill’s blog http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2010/04/01/critique-of-kugel-1/ , where he sardonically notes: “Acceptance of revelation is not pixie dust to magically wave over a human document…. One cannot treat the Bible simply as primitive and then call it revelation” See also Benjamin Sommers, “Two Introductions to Scripture: James Kugel and the Possibility of Biblical Theology”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 100, no. 1 (winter 2010), pp. 153-182. With regard to Kugel, I believe this criticism is somewhat misplaced.

(1) The major theological thrust of Kugel;s scholarly endeavors  is that the sanctity of the Torah in Judaism was not determined by a Protestant-like faith in Sola Scriptura but on strength of the ongoing internal interpretive tradition that it evoked.  It is precisely this understanding that leads Kugel to reject an “excavationalist” approach, irrespective of its academic merits, as totally irrelevant in a religious setting.

(2) Despite his emphasis on the critical role of subsequent interpretive layers in hallowing earlier biblical fragments, Kugel’s reverence for such core texts does not rely on these later developments alone. Alongside traces of pagan influence and a primitive mindset, he finds elements of biblical narrative (such as depictions of Abraham’s and Jacob’s confusion between men and angels), and other testimonies to fleeting experiences of the sublime even before the “great Interpretive Revolution” (as he terms it) that he attributes to the closing centuries BCE. In his opinion, these can offer spiritual inspiration for our day, even when taken on their own.

Nevertheless, Kugel’s religious privileging of the text as viewed through the lenses of tradition does lead him to be dismissive of some more contemporary methods of textual analysis embraced by Modern Orthodox defenders of the faith as tools for demonstrating the spiritual superiority of the biblical text as it stands.  Literary approaches which regard only the final form of the Torah as their object of study are increasingly adopted by religious believers, on the assumption that focusing on the text itself, rather than on its historical components, or the varying political circumstances that these reflect, leads to deeper appreciation of its moral and theological messages – see, for example, R. Aaron Lichtenstein, “Criticism and Kitvei ha-Kodesh”, in: Rav Shalom Banayikh: Essays Presented to Rabbi Shalom Carmy by friends and students in celebration of forty years of teaching, edited by Hayyim Angel and Yitzhak Blau [Jersey City: Ktav, 2012], pp. 15-32. In their opinion, even if a holistic approach to the text does not compel any conclusions regarding its divine source, it at the very least enables an interpretative framework that draws attention to suggestive patterns lurking behind the surface that might yield important religious and psychological insights.  On their account, Kugel’s prejudice against the notion of a final redactor in his reconstruction of the process whereby the Bible was transformed into Scripture does indeed cause him to overlook important intra-textual nuances, and the lofty messages that can be derived from these.  Kugel’s dichotomous approach to the methods of secular biblical scholarship versus Torah study conducted through the interpretive lens of rabbinic tradition leads him to be even more emphatically critical of recent work conducted under the rubric of biblical theology.  Unlike studies employing a literary approach, the latter do not reject assumptions regarding the text’s multiple layers and the varying political/historical circumstances and interests that these reflect, but purport to extract redeeming moral and spiritual lessons even from these – an effort that Kugel sarcastically describes as “having your Bible and criticizing it too”. Kugel views both efforts as questionable samples of Western eisegesis, often made possible only through selective use of the evidence, however sophisticatedly masked (see his response to Sommers’ “Two Introductions to Scripture” [ibid], entitled “Kugel in JQR”, http://www.jameskugel.com/kugel-jqr.pdf). Taken as such, Kugel might regard continued attempts on the part of believers to discover meanings that extend beyond those established by the rabbinic tradition as greater testimony to the ingenuity and creativity of the human spirit than to any biblical (or divine) intent of authentic religious significance, despite the apologetic “feel good” use to which these efforts are put.

 As he puts it: “words are words are words” and “who are we to determine what or how God can put in His book, or how it can arrive in our hands?”-  http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/conversation-with-james-kugel-about-revelation/

 http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/conversation-with-james-kugel-a-follow-up/