Hi there. Comments are below. Fred
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. Divergent paths? Not all paths lead to the source > of paths, the giver of paths? And there are only two > paths? I generalized to make a point. The secular worlds take on Biblical text analysis is worlds apart from Rabbinic exegisis. I get the impression that you've not done much reading of these here Rabbi's I'm referring to. A great beginning is from a fantastic translation of the OT into English by the late and very great Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. "The Living Torah" http://www.amazon.com/Living-Torah-Translation-introduction-bibliography\ /dp/0940118726/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203631250&sr=1-12 <http://www.amazon.com/Living-Torah-Translation-introduction-bibliograph\ y/dp/0940118726/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203631250&sr=1-12> > 2. In what way is Frye's path "secular?" What is "secular" about Frye, an ordained minister? Harold > Bloom is another kettle of fish, to be sure. As I indicated above their approach is literary and the Rabbi's is religious. They are just two different and divergent approaches. > > 3. Rabinic commentaries lead you to an understanding better and faster than a mind well-trained to read the original and translations into several different languages? And this is so in spite of the fact that these commentaries are almost "impossible to grasp?" Isn't "grasping" the whole point of the exercise, since grasping is union with the light of understanding? And if this understanding comes, whether slow or instant, with difficult labor or with easy flight, then how was the path "secular" or in any way inferior? You wrote "Rabinic commentaries lead you to an understanding better and faster than a mind well-trained to read the original and translations into several different languages?" Think about what you just said. Whose mind is well trained to read the original? A Rabbi or a university professor of English? I'm not entirely sure of your point. These generations of Rabbi's understood the original text and the translations into Aramaic (and way back in the Talmudic times....translations into Greek and Latin) a whole bunch better than anyone living today. Today, for us in this generation, some of those rabbinic commentaries are very hard to grasp, especially the more mystical ones. Grasping is part of the exercise. If someone arrives at a deeper level of understanding then it matters little in which manner your approach was. I highlighted the different approaches and my view that the Rabbinic/religious approach was probably closer to the inner essence. The Rabbi's did not have a patent on learning or insight. They did hold a tradition of exegisis that predates the Greek and Roman Empires, so they have where to stand in terms of our respect. Perhaps you forget how old the realms of Jewish intellectual investigations are? They go back to the exile in Babylonia (in terms of the beginning of Rabbinic schools). It is very old and very well established. It is true that contemporary writers who really understand the depth of anagogic language are far and few between. We do live in a fundamentalist age. Even so, have you read Frye's book on William Blake? Yes, it is wonderful and very deep. It is still the best guide yet produced on a writer who is every bit as much a prophet as any of the OT writers. Many academics think this of Blake. I do not hold that Blake was on the same level as the OT prophets. But, as Blake says, "I give you the end of a golden string--just wind it up into a ball and it will lead you in at heaven's gate." That it seems to me would be the point. The reader learns to do this with the words of a prophet rather than trying to grasp something almost impossible--another critic's way of winding up that string. I do not think you quite follow what the role of a prophet or prophetess was in the Jewish religion. They were generally granted the grace of prophecy for the sake of the whole nation. Some bits and pieces of what they gathered might have been quite mundane and pertaining to small scale events. The larger prophecies, the more familiar ones, were given to help direct the nation towards repentance and correction of attitudes. Some prophecies were couched in totally hidden allegories and metaphors that perhaps described events in the far off future. The words of Daniel and Ezekiel are very strange and describe realities that are so sublime that they appear as if these men had taken strong drugs. Which is more direct? It is also true that commentary such as you describe can indeed be instructive. But it is my experience in teaching/writing/translating poetry to students/writers/poets from pre-school to grad school, that children are better at understanding metaphor than are scholars. Take that simple poem in my last post, "Poem Written Dream-Side." In it, an old wisteria tree is mentioned. When I have taught this poem in grad school, people needed a footnote as to > what sort of cultural symbol the wisteria tree is in China. Eighth graders figured it out all by > themselves based on their reading of the text of the poem itself. And when they figured it out, that figuring gave them the light of understanding in memorable "aha-experiences." They needed a footnote for dragons and snakes, but not for "orioles." Have those commentators taught you to do as well as these eighth graders, consulting only the text of the translation of this poem? I'll give you the footnote for "dragons" and "snakes." > > The Chinese dragon is a cultural symbol akin to the > Thunderbird of Native Americans, the giant bird, > Garuda of the Hindu pantheon. He is Mercury of the > Roman gods and Hermes in Greek mythology. In the > Christian imagination, the Archangel Michael serves as > God's messenger, as the interface between the relative > and the Absolute. The dragon is God's inspiration, > and he is the creativity of Spring, of Spring rain, > and of fertility. He is also the emperor and his > nobility in seeking the pearl of wisdom. > > Snakes are a symbol of siddha power, especially the > power to heal, as we can still guess in the staff of > Mercury (Hermes) with its entwined serpents that still > often decorates the offices of doctors and dentists. > > Now, given this information, and the text of Chin > Kuan's poem, can you arrive at what the wisteria tree > means in this poem? > [snip] It is so tempting to take writing such as the Psalms and see it ONLY as poetry. I view this as the surface level. Sure on the surface the works of King Solomon are sensual and very moving. The poetry of his father, King David is full of yearning for God and much more. That's all on the surface. Harold Bloom and his ilk will take the words and try to find out what the metaphors have to teach us in terms of moral lessons and the like. That is all valid. The Rabbinic approach takes the words and interweaves the interpretation with all of "Shas" (the entire corpus of the OT - which means Written and Oral Torah and every thing else considered part of the Holy Texts). These men look to the entire writings and the secular writers do not. kind regards, Fred
