| > I am curious regarding what the Jewish understanding of these books
> are. Are they considered historic truth? Sacred story?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Is there a difference between Reform, Conservative, and Orthordox Jews
> regarding how the Torah, Propets, and Writings are interpreted?
^^^^^^^^
Historic truth - Orthodox - truth: yes
- sacred: The Torah.
- writing: Follow them as strictly as possible
Conservative and Reform -
- truth: strong historical base with interpretation
(for example I don't think very many believe
in a literal interpretation of creation).
- sacred: The Torah (but again some things must be
tempered and re-interpreted. (For example
we don't stone women for adultary nor do we
have a man marry his brother's widow).
- writings: Written by very wise men with a keen
insight into the times and (generally) provide
very good rules to live by.
(Born Orthodox, raised pseudo-Orthodox, First affiliation Conservative, found a
home in Reform).
Shelly (Sheldon)
|
| re .1
I'm not quite sure I understand your answer with respect to the question
asked in .0.
Could you be more specific about the three books Judges, Samuel, and Kings.
Many liberal theologians would claim that the events described in these
books never took place.
More conservative theologians would claim that the events happened exactly
as described and under the direct supervision of G-d.
Theologians in the middle would say that they represent spiritual truth
even if they are not historically accurate.
Are there Jewish theologians in each of these camps? (I would think so.)
Some people read what is in those books without understanding and decide
to reject G-d as cruel and capricious. How does the faithful Jew respond
to such a reaction?
/john
|
| First, I am not a Bible scholar. What I was trying to convey was the
general attitude of the the three main divisions of Judaism to these
areas as I see it. We all consider the Torah as sacred although, as
I stated, there are area for interpretration.
I can't address the three books in particular and will leave that to
others. What I am trying to convey is that the Conservative and
Reform movements temper the literal words to (a) bring them more to
the modern era and (b) to empahsize God's love rather than His wrath.
We (Reform) view religion as an evolving process. Just as we no
longer believe the world to be flat, we have to reconsider certain
passages. While they might have fit the times, new evidence forces
us to look for a deeper meaning, an underlying truth and to discard
what are obvious (to us) inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
John, as I said, I must leave these three books to others to more
accurately describe. My message was to give a broad brush as to how
we view the sacred writings in general.
Shelly
|