Distinguishing Between the Spirit of the Law vs. the Law.

[John D. Brey]

I think it would be fair to consider the idea that what you call the "folk," the "fringe," the "unacceptable," is actually the spirit, which modern Judaism has placed beneath the law.

See, that's the thing. I don't. I think the spirit is the spirit and the folk custom is the folk custom. And the unacceptable? Unacceptable

In a Jewish spirit one might say the Torah is the law, the scroll is the law, such that alef-tav את, which represent the first-and-the-last (alpha and omega), the beginning and the end (the two letters the sages tell us represent the entire Torah) thus fully, or reasonably, represent the nature of the Torah, and therefore the nature of the law.

But what of the spirit of the law?

In one of the most profound midrashim ever written (Midrash Rabbah, Numbers, Chukkath XIX, 3) God points out to the angels that they know only the outer appearance of the law of God while Adam's glance cuts deeper . . . into the very spirit of the law. As proof, God shows the angels that, knowing the very spirit of the animals, rather than their mere outer appearance, their mere nature, Adam is enabled to give the animals a name representative not of their mere outer form and appearance, but according to the spirit of the animal so named.

Upping the ante God next asks Adam to name himself. ----Adam points out that his name is "Adam" alef-dalet-mem א–דם, at which point God asks Adam to name his interlocutor, to which Adam responds "Adon" alef-dalet-nun א–דן.

The reader of the midrash who realizes what's going on, i.e., that Adam is using the naming process to reveal his ability to see into the very spirit of things, is provided an opportunity to glance into the very spirit of God, and thus the spirit of the law of God, the scroll, the mere nature, the outer appearance, of God's inner Spirit.



John

 

[metis]

In Judaism, we often refer to "the meaning behind the words", namely what is the main brunt of what the author is trying to convey? The Law is a means to an end (actually many different "ends"), so it's important for us to try and figure out its "drift". This is the basis of our commentary system whereas a great many sages over the ages threw in their comments on what they thought various narratives were trying to convey. As one might suspect, they didn't always agree with each other, but that is indeed to be expected since it's not really easy to try and figure out what the authors meant.

 

[Brickjectivity]

'Spirit of the Law' seems like something discussed in Galatians and Romans. It is left as an exercise to source the idea from other places.

 

[John D. Brey]

In Judaism, we often refer to "the meaning behind the words", namely what is the main brunt of what the author is trying to convey? The Law is a means to an end (actually many different "ends"), so it's important for us to try and figure out its "drift". This is the basis of our commentary system whereas a great many sages over the ages threw in their comments on what they thought various narratives were trying to convey. As one might suspect, they didn't always agree with each other, but that is indeed to be expected since it's not really easy to try and figure out what the authors meant.

The question is whether the written text of scripture reveals God to you, or whether God reveals the meaning of the written text to you? It's an epistemological question. Does God come to you through text, or does the text's meaning come to your through God? . . . Or are you under the illusion that the outer narrative (David killing Goliath, Moses parting the sea) is the meaning of the text?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

'Spirit of the Law' seems like something discussed in Galatians and Romans. It is left as an exercise to source the idea from other places.

. . . Have you done that?



John

 

[Brickjectivity]

. . . Have you done that?



John

It is a subject that has gotten deeper each time I've looked at, and I do not have the level of commitment required to follow it to its bottom. At first it seems simply something Paul is teaching a new concept he calls 'Spirit of the law', but no it is not simple, nor is Paul teaching a new concept. Paul is referencing an already established and understood Jewish concept. There is a concept called 'Circumcising your heart' mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, and Paul is referring to that. The Jewish Law is divided into two worlds or levels, and the first world is the world of keeping the commandments literally but also requires an equivalent amount of work in the 'Heart' which is another world altogether. So discussing the law has always had two dimensions not only one. It has always been a spiritual conversation. It isn't enough to keep the laws you must keep them twice, once with your hands and also with your heart. At first glance through Romans and Galations you get the wrong impression that this is some kind of innovative idea on Paul's part, but that is not at all true. The command to circumcise the hearts both complicates following the laws and at the same time explains how to follow some of them. The physical laws themselves are complex enough, so how complex are the laws of the heart? Just as the physical laws reflect the physical world the heart aspect of the laws reflect the complexity of the heart. This explains why Talmud scholars would get into discussions about the inner working of humans, our drives and so forth. It was part of Torah study and practice. Romans and Galatians mention this heart circumcision in passing, but a lot of people aren't even aware that the concept of spiritual law is based in Deuteronomy and the entire practice of Torah. I was not always aware of it, and I think its common that Christians aren't. It is shows that there are other dimensions to the Torah -- that is it not merely something that is followed word for word. The concept of 'Law of spirit' is an old and deeply considered path, one which I have barely looked into in person. Honestly its a very deep subject, that is not simply a few lines on paper. I think that there is a huge cultural gap between us and Paul or the writers who write in his name. To rediscover what Paul is talking about would require a lot of dedication and actually rehearsing the laws themselves and also focusing upon keeping the part that demands circumcision in the heart. Then a person would have some background. Even before we could understand the various arguments about why Christians do not need to eat kosher we'd need more understanding of the conversations about the heart and so forth. I do not think it is as simple as I would prefer.

 

[John D. Brey]

It is a subject that has gotten deeper each time I've looked at, and I do not have the level of commitment required to follow it to its bottom. At first it seems simply something Paul is teaching a new concept he calls 'Spirit of the law', but no it is not simple, nor is Paul teaching a new concept. Paul is referencing an already established and understood Jewish concept. There is a concept called 'Circumcising your heart' mentioned in Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, and Paul is referring to that. The Jewish Law is divided into two worlds or levels, and the first world is the world of keeping the commandments literally but also requires an equivalent amount of work in the 'Heart' which is another world altogether. So discussing the law has always had two dimensions not only one. It has always been a spiritual conversation. It isn't enough to keep the laws you must keep them twice, once with your hands and also with your heart. At first glance through Romans and Galations you get the wrong impression that this is some kind of innovative idea on Paul's part, but that is not at all true. The command to circumcise the hearts both complicates following the laws and at the same time explains how to follow some of them. The physical laws themselves are complex enough, so how complex are the laws of the heart? Just as the physical laws reflect the physical world the heart aspect of the laws reflect the complexity of the heart. This explains why Talmud scholars would get into discussions about the inner working of humans, our drives and so forth. It was part of Torah study and practice. Romans and Galatians mention this heart circumcision in passing, but a lot of people aren't even aware that the concept of spiritual law is based in Deuteronomy and the entire practice of Torah. I was not always aware of it, and I think its common that Christians aren't. It is shows that there are other dimensions to the Torah -- that is it not merely something that is followed word for word. The concept of 'Law of spirit' is an old and deeply considered path, one which I have barely looked into in person. Honestly its a very deep subject, that is not simply a few lines on paper. I think that there is a huge cultural gap between us and Paul or the writers who write in his name. To rediscover what Paul is talking about would require a lot of dedication and actually rehearsing the laws themselves and also focusing upon keeping the part that demands circumcision in the heart. Then a person would have some background. Even before we could understand the various arguments about why Christians do not need to eat kosher we'd need more understanding of the conversations about the heart and so forth. I do not think it is as simple as I would prefer.

Nicely put. . . I agree with you on all counts.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In one of the most profound midrashim ever written (Midrash Rabbah, Numbers, Chukkath XIX, 3) God points out to the angels that they know only the outer appearance of the law of God while Adam's glance cuts deeper . . . into the very spirit of the law. As proof, God shows the angels that, knowing the very spirit of the animals, rather than their mere outer appearance, their mere nature, Adam is enabled to give the animals a name representative not of their mere outer form and appearance, but according to the spirit of the animal so named.

Upping the ante God next asks Adam to name himself. ----Adam points out that his name is "Adam" alef-dalet-mem א–דם, at which point God asks Adam to name his interlocutor, to which Adam responds "Adon" alef-dalet-nun א–דן.

The reader of the midrash who realizes what's going on, i.e., that Adam is using the naming process to reveal his ability to see into the very spirit of things, is provided an opportunity to glance into the very spirit of God, and thus the spirit of the law of God, the scroll, the mere nature, the outer appearance, of God's inner Spirit.

For the ancient mind, a name was representative of the spirit of a thing, such that Adam's ability to name things was reflective of his insight into the spirit of the thing. Scripture is clear that this insight is unique to Adam and the "sons of Adam" (typically a term referring to circumcised Jews) such that no other creatures, to include angels, have a similar ability to see into the spirit of a thing. Moses asks the God at the burning bush his name precisely to understand the spirit of the God calling Moses by name.

Understanding that naming a thing is suggestive of the ability to appreciate the spirit of the thing brings the midrash in question into the light and points out its immeasurable profundity: God has Adam name himself (i.e. reveal his deeper spirit) and then asks Adam to name God (that is, reveal to all creation something of the spirit of the God who is Adam's interlocutor).



John

 

[metis]

The question is whether the written text of scripture reveals God to you, or whether God reveals the meaning of the written text to you? It's an epistemological question. Does God come to you through text, or does the text's meaning come to your through God? . . . Or are you under the illusion that the outer narrative (David killing Goliath, Moses parting the sea) is the meaning of the text?



John

As to what you wrote in the first paragraph, neither. As to the second paragraph, too hard to say.

As far as my supposed "illusion", it's hard to have a discussion with a person who somehow claims to know exactly what an author that's unknown to us was precisely trying to say on a text written well over 2000 years ago. Our commentary system allows for this uncertainty, but your certainty claiming that you know exactly what the author meant is really what's "illusion".

 

[John D. Brey]

As to what you wrote in the first paragraph, neither. As to the second paragraph, too hard to say.

As far as my supposed "illusion", it's hard to have a discussion with a person who somehow claims to know exactly what an author that's unknown to us was precisely trying to say on a text written well over 2000 years ago. Our commentary system allows for this uncertainty, but your certainty claiming that you know exactly what the author meant is really what's "illusion".

I think the Author means many things. But He's not far from us. We can know him personally. He can reveal things to us personally; things that are not in the text, but in us (if we are in Him), things we bring to the text. Meanings the text can't resist.


John

 

[Tumah]

In a Jewish spirit one might say the Torah is the law, the scroll is the law, such that alef-tav את, which represent the first-and-the-last (alpha and omega), the beginning and the end (the two letters the sages tell us represent the entire Torah) thus fully, or reasonably, represent the nature of the Torah, and therefore the nature of the law.

But what of the spirit of the law?

In one of the most profound midrashim ever written (Midrash Rabbah, Numbers, Chukkath XIX, 3) God points out to the angels that they know only the outer appearance of the law of God while Adam's glance cuts deeper . . . into the very spirit of the law. As proof, God shows the angels that, knowing the very spirit of the animals, rather than their mere outer appearance, their mere nature, Adam is enabled to give the animals a name representative not of their mere outer form and appearance, but according to the spirit of the animal so named.

Upping the ante God next asks Adam to name himself. ----Adam points out that his name is "Adam" alef-dalet-mem א–דם, at which point God asks Adam to name his interlocutor, to which Adam responds "Adon" alef-dalet-nun א–דן.

The reader of the midrash who realizes what's going on, i.e., that Adam is using the naming process to reveal his ability to see into the very spirit of things, is provided an opportunity to glance into the very spirit of God, and thus the spirit of the law of God, the scroll, the mere nature, the outer appearance, of God's inner Spirit.



John

Well, this is kind of misleading isn't it.

You've kind of interpreted the Midrash to your benefit and then wrote it as though it was a quote straight out of the Midrash.
All the Midrash says is that when G-d wanted to create man, He discussed it with the angels. The angels say, "who is man that we should mention him?" G-d responds, "his [man's] wisdom is greater than yours". Then He asks them to name stuff. They can't. Then He has Adam do it and he does.

Nothing there about spirit of the law. Nothing there about outer appearance of the law, spirit of the animal, glance cutting deeper. That's just you doing what you do best: reading what you want into whatever is in front of you. As we've seen in the past.
The Midrash chalks it up to simply being wiser.

 

[metis]

I think the Author means many things. But He's not far from us. We can know him personally. He can reveal things to us personally; things that are not in the text, but in us (if we are in Him), things we bring to the text. Meanings the text can't resist.


John

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Undoubtedly millions, and maybe even billions, of people make similar claims, and yet they typically vary significantly in terms of what they believe God told them.

 

[John D. Brey]

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Undoubtedly millions, and maybe even billions, of people make similar claims, and yet they typically vary significantly in terms of what they believe God told them.

. . . Which exemplifies the importance of establishing direct contact with the Author so that you're not relying on interpretations from millions and billions of fallible human beings. As I stated in the message you're responding to, it's a question of whether you come to know what God would say to you through others, and or through written text, or else does God make himself known to you by sharing with you personally what is a correct interpretation of the text?

It's a wonderful thing to watch (or rather read) the sages in the midrashim go back and forth sharing with one another concerning what God has revealed to them personally. When they attempt to make sense of similarities and differences between what God has told one, and what he has told another, they come up with revelations of breathtaking import.



John

 

[metis]

. . . Which exemplifies the importance of establishing direct contact with the Author so that you're not relying on interpretations from millions and billions of fallible human beings. As I stated in the message you're responding to, it's a question of whether you come to know what God would say to you through others, and or through written text, or else does God make himself known to you by sharing with you personally what is a correct interpretation of the text?

It's a wonderful thing to watch (or rather read) the sages in the midrashim go back and forth sharing with one another concerning what God has revealed to them personally. When they attempt to make sense of similarities and differences between what God has told one, and what he has told another, they come up with revelations of breathtaking import.



John

I don't believe in magic.

 

[John D. Brey]

You've kind of interpreted the Midrash to your benefit and then wrote it as though it was a quote straight out of the Midrash.
All the Midrash says is that when G-d wanted to create man, He discussed it with the angels. The angels say, "who is man that we should mention him?" G-d responds, "his [man's] wisdom is greater than yours". Then He asks them to name stuff. They can't. Then He has Adam do it and he does. . . Nothing there about spirit of the law. Nothing there about outer appearance of the law, spirit of the animal, glance cutting deeper. That's just you doing what you do best: reading what you want into whatever is in front of you. As we've seen in the past. . . The Midrash chalks it up to simply being wiser.

Barring some great philosophers of language, like Wittgenstein, Derrida, and say Walter Benjamin, Buber, etc., most modern folk don't appreciate the relationship between the spirit and the word. A word is always a name, a naming, whereby, as Wittgenstein implies, the spirit of a thing is baptized into the name (or the name baptized into the spirit) thereafter creating a union that incarnates the invisible spirit of the thing with the visible name that reference the invisible spirit. The writers of the midrash in question are precursors of men like Wittgenstein and Benjamin, such that they realize something of the spirit of a thing is always hiding beneath the name of a thing.

When Adam names himself before God and the angels he's providing a link to the spirit of man. When Adam names god before God and the angels, he's revealing a link to the spirit of God.

So what does Adam name himself? He names himself alef-dalet-mem א–דם. . . Why separate the alef from the dalet-mem? The alef is the first letter, and as the first letter it represents the first creation of God, that thing, even letter, closest to God. Adam (אדם) is firstly related to the alef, God, such that the first letter in his name is the alef. ----- So what of the dalet-mem? ------ It spells blood דם (dam). Adam is God's blood? Yes. According to midrashim he is:

8. OF THE GROUND (ADAMAH), R. Berekiah and R. Belbo in the name of Samuel the Elder said: He was created from the place of his atonement, as you read, An altar of earth (adamah) thou shalt make unto me (Ex. xx,21). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: `Behold I will create him from the place of his atonement, and may he endure!"

Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h XIV.8.​

God creates an altar of earth, and spills (breathes, metzitzah) his blood into and onto the altar of earth (adamah). Adam's name is related to "earth" (adamah), and the color "red" (adam) since, according to midrashim, Adam is created as an altar of earth infused with the breath of life. . . But what does the breath of life have to do with blood? . . . Immediately after suggesting that Adam is created as an earthen altar, a place of atonement (so that he might endure when the need for atonement comes, since it's produced in his very creation) the midrash speaks of the fact that the breath of life (mixed with the earthen altar) has five names:

THE BREATH OF (NISHMATH) LIFE. It has five names: nefesh, neshamah, hayyah, ruah, yehidah. Nefesh is the blood: For the blood is the nefesh --- E.V. "life" (Deut. xii, 23). Ruah: this is so called because it ascends and descends: thus it is written, Who knoweth the ruah (E.V. "spirit") of man whether it goeth upward and the ruah, of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth (Eccl. iii, 21)? Neshamah is the breath; as people say, His breathing is good. Hayyah (lit. "living"): because all the limbs are mortal, whereas this is immortal in the body. Yehidah (unique) : because all the limbs are duplicated, whereas this is unique in the body.

Ibid. XIV.9.​

Rabbi Hirsch clarifies this:

. . . the primary meaning of דם [blood] is image, symbol, representative . . . The animal soul--- together with the body--- is formed from the earth. By contrast, the source of man's soul is not the source of his earthly frame; rather, God, as it were, breathed into man a spark of His Own essence. . . your blood, which belongs to your souls, is Mine, not yours. I will demand it, because it belongs to Me and is at My disposal, and I require a reckoning for every drop of your blood. . .When God says אדרש [I require] regarding the blood consigned to the human soul, He declares that our blood belongs to Him.

Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 9:5 (emphasis mine).​

The animal body, which Rabbi Hirsch associates with our natural conception, at night, through Gen(i)tile sex, is from the earth, represents the earth, is earthen: in the case of the Jew its literally an altar prepared for sacrifice. On the other hand, the blood of the Jew, is not associated with the earth, i.e., Gen(i)tile sex. It's from God--- such that the earthen altar is prepared from the earth, as animal flesh (the Gentile), so that on the eighth day, a sacrifice takes place such that the very organ the ancients associated with god, the god of the phallic-cults, is sacrificed, and its blood spilled on the earth altar in order to form a Jew from the sacrifice of the pagan god, its blood, and it's mixture with the earthen altar. The blood of the pagan god, the phallus, the serpent, is spilled on the altar of earth, earth conceived by the serpent, such that the mixture of this blood and this earth, creates the Jew, who is born-again on the eighth day, of a process that atones for the very nature of his first birth, through the serpent, in that the "blood" (death) of this pagan god (the serpent), when mixed with the earth, creates the essence of the Jew.

These things are all implicit in the midrash in question. When Adam names himself "blood of god" alef---dalet-mem א––דם, he's setting the stage for the second revelation (the name of God) that retroactively feeds back into his own name, thereby completely justifying all the foregoing, if you will, but naturally you won't.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I don't believe in magic.

Then from my vantage point you're a Jew in name only; or perhaps ethnicity, such that none of what I would love to say (to Jews in spirit) speaks to you directly. Do you believe in love? ---- You'll disappoint another Jew in name only (Huey Lewis) if you don't.


John

 

[metis]

Then from my vantage point you're a Jew in name only; or perhaps ethnicity, such that none of what I would love to say (to Jews in spirit) speaks to you directly. Do you believe in love?


John

I don't go around judging other people on such matters, so you can believe in whatever you want to believe. I generally prefer to avoid people who judge others.

However, just to briefly explain, I'm an anthropologist, now retired, and we work on the basis of objectively-derived evidence, so I find no reason to believe in that of which there is no objective evidence for, thus my reluctance to blindly accept claims of magic and miracles.

And, yes, I do believe in love, but that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

 

[Tumah]

Baring some great philosophers of language, like Wittgenstein, Derrida, and say Walter Benjamin, Buber, etc., most modern folk don't appreciate the relationship between the spirit and the word. A word is always a name, a naming, whereby, as Wittgenstein implies, the spirit of a thing is baptized into the name (or the name baptized into the spirit) thereafter creating a union that incarnates the invisible spirit of the thing with the visible name that reference the invisible spirit. The writers of the midrash in question are precursors of men like Wittgenstein and Benjamin, such that they realize something of the spirit of a thing is always hiding beneath the name of a thing.

When Adam names himself before God and the angels he's providing a link to the spirit of man. When Adam names god before God and the angels, he's revealing a link to the spirit of God.

So what does Adam name himself? He names himself alef-dalet-mem א–דם. . . Why separate the alef from the dalet-mem? The alef is the first letter, and as the first letter it represents the first creation of God, that thing, even letter, closest to God. Adam (אדם) is firstly related to the alef, God, such that the first letter in his name is the alef. ----- So what of the dalet-mem? ------ It spells blood דם (dam). Adam is God's blood? Yes. According to midrashim he is:

8. OF THE GROUND (ADAMAH), R. Berekiah and R. Belbo in the name of Samuel the Elder said: He was created from the place of his atonement, as you read, An altar of earth (adamah) thou shalt make unto me (Ex. xx,21). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: `Behold I will create him from the place of his atonement, and may he endure!"

Midrash Rabbah, Bere****h XIV.8.​

God creates an altar of earth, and spills (breathes, metzitzah) his blood into and onto the altar of earth (adamah). Adam's name is related to "earth" (adamah), and the color "red" (adam) since, according to midrashim, Adam is created as an altar of earth infused with the breath of life. . . But what does the breath of life have to do with blood? . . . Immediately after suggesting that Adam is created as an earthen altar, a place of atonement (so that he might endure when the need for atonement comes, since it's produced in his very creation) the midrash speaks of the fact that the breath of life (mixed with the earthen altar) has five names:

THE BREATH OF (NISHMATH) LIFE. It has five names: nefesh, neshamah, hayyah, ruah, yehidah. Nefesh is the blood: For the blood is the nefesh --- E.V. "life" (Deut. xii, 23). Ruah: this is so called because it ascends and descends: thus it is written, Who knoweth the ruah (E.V. "spirit") of man whether it goeth upward and the ruah, of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth (Eccl. iii, 21)? Neshamah is the breath; as people say, His breathing is good. Hayyah (lit. "living"): because all the limbs are mortal, whereas this is immortal in the body. Yehidah (unique) : because all the limbs are duplicated, whereas this is unique in the body.

Ibid. XIV.9.​

Rabbi Hirsch clarifies this:

. . . the primary meaning of דם [blood] is image, symbol, representative . . . The animal soul--- together with the body--- is formed from the earth. By contrast, the source of man's soul is not the source of his earthly frame; rather, God, as it were, breathed into man a spark of His Own essence. . . your blood, which belongs to your souls, is Mine, not yours. I will demand it, because it belongs to Me and is at My disposal, and I require a reckoning for every drop of your blood. . .When God says אדרש [I require] regarding the blood consigned to the human soul, He declares that our blood belongs to Him.

Hirsch Chumash, Bereshis 9:5.​

The animal body, which Rabbi Hirsch associates with our natural conception, at night, through Gen(i)tile sex, is from the earth, represents the earth, is earthen: in the case of the Jew its literally an altar prepared for sacrifice. On the other hand, the blood of the Jew, is not associated with the earth, i.e., Gen(i)tile sex. It's from God--- such that the earthen altar is prepared from the earth, as animal flesh (the Gentile), so that on the eighth day, a sacrifice takes place such that the very organ the ancients associated with god, the god of the phallic-cults, is sacrificed, and its blood spilled on the earth altar in order to form a Jew from the sacrifice of the pagan god, its blood, and it's mixture with the earthen altar. The blood of the pagan god, the phallus, the serpent, is spilled on the altar of earth, earth conceived by the serpent, such that the mixture of this blood and this earth, creates the Jew, who is born-again on the eighth day, of a process that atones for the very nature of his first birth, through the serpent, in that the "blood" (death) of this pagan god (the serpent), when mixed with the earth, creates the essence of the Jew.

These things are all implicit in the midrash in question. When Adam names himself "blood of god" alef---dalet-mem א––דם, he is setting the stage for the second revelation (the name of God) that retroactively feeds back into his own name, thereby completely justifying all the foregoing, if you will, but naturally you won't.



John

You could have just saved a lot of time by saying:
"You are right the midrash doesn't say that. But I like to think it does. I'll save you some time by not replying with another sermon I made up about the man's reproductive organ, using Jewish sources that I twist to make say what I'd like."

No wonder @rosends is avoiding this thread.

 

[rosends]

You could have just saved a lot of time by saying:
"You are right the midrash doesn't say that. But I like to think it does. I'll save you some time by not replying with another sermon I made up about the man's reproductive organ, using Jewish sources that I twist to make say what I'd like."

No wonder @rosends is avoiding this thread.

So far, the only thing that has made sense in the last couple of days is the Huey Lewis and the News reference.

 

[John D. Brey]

However, just to briefly explain, I'm an anthropologist, now retired, and we work on the basis of objectively-derived evidence, so I find no reason to believe in that of which there is no objective evidence for, thus my reluctance to blindly accept claims of magic and miracles.

. . . But you were a Jew before you were an anthropologist. Why not let Judaism form the foundation of your anthropology rather than anthropology forming the foundation of your Judaism?


John